Criminal Law- Involunary Manslaughter (Unlawful and Dangerous act M/S & Gross Negligence M/S)

Question 1

what is Involuntary manslaughter

Answer 1

it is the name given to an unlawful homicide where the actus reus of murder has taken place, but without the mens rea of murder.

Question 2

what are two kinds of involuntary manslaughter under common law:

Answer 2

1. Unlawful and dangerous act/ constructive manslaughter.

2. Gross negligence manslaughter.

Question 3

what is the definition of constructive/ unlawful act manslaughter

Answer 3

Killing by doing an act that is both ‘unlawful’ and ‘dangerous’.

Question 4

what elements are included in the construction of D’s liability

Answer 4

Unlawful act + dangerousness + death = ULA M/S

Question 5

what are elements make up the AR of constructive manslaughter

Answer 5

1. An unlawful act
2. The act was dangerous
3. The act has caused the death of a human being
4. Within the Queen’s peace

Question 6

what 3 things make an unlawful act

Answer 6

1. death must be caused by an act
2. the unlawful act must be a crime
3. the unlawful act will typically be a battery or an assault

Question 7

what other criminal acts can be classed as an unlawful act for constructive M/S

Answer 7

criminal damage, arson, burglary, robbery, misuse of drugs act 1971, stalking

Question 8

explain the case of Dawson in relation to the dangerousness test

Answer 8

f: D’s attempted to rob a garage carrying imitation firearms but the 60 year old attendant died due a heart condition.
H: When applying the objective test laid down in Church, ‘sober and reasonable people’ could be assumed to have the same knowledge as the actual defendant. The reasonable person could not have been aware of the attendant’s bad heart.

Question 9

explain the case of Watson in relation to the dangerousness test

Answer 9

F: 87 year old frail man was burgled by the D’s. Suffered a heart attack and died.
H: The accused’s unlawful act became dangerous as soon as the old man’s frailty and old age would have been obvious to a reasonable observer.

Question 10

explain the case of JM & SM in relation to the dangerousness test

Answer 10

F: Brother thrown out of a nightclub and started a fight with the bouncers. One bouncer was suffering from an aneurysm and died.
H: The sober and reasonable person only had to foresee some harm. They did not have to foresee a specific type of harm.

Question 11

explain the case that corresponds with point 1 of what makes an unlawful act in constructive M/S

Answer 11

LOWE
F: the appellant’s child died from neglect, the trial judge directed the jury that if they found the him guilty of the offence if neglect they must also find him guilty of manslaughter on the grounds that neglect was an unlawful ct. the jury convicted him of both neglect and manslaughter
H: he was not found guilty of manslaughter because there must be an act however he was found guilty of s1 (1) CYPA 1933 of wilful neglect.

Question 12

explain the case that corresponds with point 2 of what makes an unlawful act in constructive M/S

Answer 12

 Franklin 1883

H:If the act is a tort the D will be convicted of Gross Negligence manslaughter.

Question 13

explain the case that corresponds with point 3 of what makes an unlawful act in constructive M/S

Answer 13

LAMB
F: A pointed a gun at his friend, as a joke and with no intention of harming him. He thought the two bullets in the gun were not lined up opposite the barrel so it could not fire. However pulling the trigger cause the barrel to rotate and the gun went off killing his friend.
H: D and his friend viewed the incident as joke. There was no unlawful act as Lamb did not intend or foresee the risk of hitting his friend (battery), nor of frightening him (assault).

Question 14

explain the case that corresponds with criminal damage being included as a criminal act that can amount to constructive M/S

Answer 14

DPP v Newbury and Jones (1977)
F: Two fifteen year old boys pushed a paving stone from a bridge onto the cab of a train. The stone smashed through the cab window and hit a guard and killed him.
H:They were convicted of manslaughter. The HL upheld their convictions – without specifying what offence the conviction was based on. The most obvious is criminal damage.

Question 15

explain the case of Bristow in relation to the dangerousness test

Answer 15

H: CA stated burglaries were not automatically dangerous [this was because is was carried out at night near neighbouring residential properties so there was a risk the burglars would be interrupted and ensuing danger to anyone arriving on the scene].

Question 16

what is the for factual causation, cite a case to support?

Answer 16

but for test (white)

Question 17

what is the test for legal causation in crime?

Answer 17

operating and substantial cause of death

Question 18

what is the main test for a novus actus interveniens?

Answer 18

more than a trifling link

Question 19

cite a case for third parties and victims breaking the chain of causation

Answer 19

third party= Pagett

act of victim= Roberts

Question 20

what is the test for medical issues being a novus actus interveniens from Chesire?

Answer 20

medical intervention must be palpably wrong

Question 21

what is the the thin skull rule cite a case to support?

Answer 21

blaue

Question 22

explain the case of kennedy?

Answer 22

F: V asked D for something to help him sleep, D gave V a needle filled with heroin. V paid and injected himself and left. He died an hour later.
H: If V freely and voluntarily administered the injection knowing what it was, this means that D was not the cause of death. His supplying of the drug did not cause the death, the voluntary injection by the V did.

Question 23

explain the case of shohid?

Answer 23

F: D was one of a group of men who attacked the V and his friend on the platform of a railway station. V and his friend were forced onto the railway track, and the friend was able to climb back onto the platform. V however, was prevented from doing so by some of the attackers, not including D and was killed by a train.
H: The unlawful and dangerous act need not be the sole cause of death, so long as it was not trivial.
[original act sufficiently serious to cause death in this case]

Question 24

explain the ratio of the case of lamb HL

Answer 24

H: D lacked the mens rea for either offence, and so did not have the mens rea of unlawful and dangerous act manslaughter either.

NB: If the underlying unlawful act is one of strict liability then no MR is required.

Question 25

explain the ratio of the case of Andrews

Answer 25

H: Ratio: CA upheld conviction for an unlawful manslaughter conviction where the initial crime was strict liability and thus required no mens rea.

Question 26

Which case are the requirements die GN manslaughter laid down in?

Answer 26

Adomako

Question 27

What were the facts of the adomako case

Answer 27

Adomako was an anaesthetist whose patient died if lack of oxygen in an eye operation when the tube in his mouth became detached from the ventilator. The patient was paralysed by injection of a drug and an endotracheal tune was inserted for the patient to breathe by mechanics means. Disconnection occurred at 11.05 am (approx). Oxygen supply to patient ceased leading to cardiac arrest at 11.14 am. During this time A failed to notice or remedy the disconnection. A first became aware that something was amiss when an alarm sounded on the machine that monitors the patients blood pressure. 4 1/2 minutes would have elapsed between the disconnection and the alarm. The disconnection itself was not discovered until after resuscitation measures had been commenced.

Question 28

What was held in the case of Adomako

Answer 28

A was found guilty of GN manslaughter. His appeal to the HL was dismissed. Lord Malkey started ‘the ordinary principles of negligence apply to ascertain whether or not D had been in breach of a duty of care towards the victim’

Question 29

What are the 4 aspects of the AR of gross negligence manslaughter

Answer 29

1. It can be committed by an act or omission
2. D must owe V a duty of care
3. Breach of duty by an act or omission creating a risk of death
4. Causing v’s death

Question 30

Which case confirmed that duty of care follows the same principles at negligence

Answer 30

Adomako

Question 31

What was the principle on duty of care laid down by Lord Atkin in donoghue v Stevenson

Answer 31

‘Neighbour principle’ must take care to avoid acts or omissions which can be reasonable foreseen would be likely to injure your neighbour. A neighbour is a person closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation

Question 32

What is the revised test on duty of care from a park industries plc v dickman

Answer 32

A) reasonably foreseeable harm?
B) proximity between C and D in time / space or relationship?
C) fair/ just and reasonable to impose a duty?

Question 33

True or false GN manslaughter can be Committed by an act or omission

Answer 33

True

Question 34

Explain the the case of khan and khan

Answer 34

F: D’s supplied heroin to a new user who took it in their presence and collapsed. They left her alone and by the time they returned to the flat she had died if the V had received medical medical help at and stage before she had died then she would have probably lived.
H: the convictions were quashed due to a misdirection but the court didn’t rule out possibility of a duty of care being owed by drug dealers

Question 35

List the omissions with the cases

Answer 35

Creating a dangerous a situation and failing to rectify it= Miller
Contractual duty= pittwood
Parental duty = gibbens and proctor
Assuming responsibility/ carer = stone + dobinson
Official position= dytham

Question 36

Explain the case of Evans

Answer 36

F: D was 8 years older than her sister (17). D her mother and V all had a history of a heroin addict. D bought some heroin and gave it to V, V self injected the heroin and then developed symptoms which D recognised as being consistent with an overdose. D and her mother didn’t seem medical assistance for fear of getting into trouble- V died

H: D’s duty of care arose not out of her familial relationship but from her supplying heroin. She had created a dangerous situation And failed to take action to reduce the risk by summoning medical assistance which would have saved her

Question 37

True or false duty can even arise where D has committed a criminal offence

Answer 37

True

Question 38

What are the facts of wacker

Answer 38

Wacker was a Dutch lorry driver his vehicle was intercepted by customs and excise officers at Dover. The officers opened the vehicles container and discovered the dead bodies of 58 illegal immigrants if Chinese origin and two other such immigrants who were still alive. The immigrants hid behind a partition. The container was then filled with a consignment of tomatoes in o conceal the fact that there were illegal immigrants on board. Because the container was designed as a refrigerated compartments thee was insufficient ventilation. The immigrants died due to the lack of air in the container.

Question 39

What was held in the case of wacker

Answer 39

He tried to raise the civil defence of ex turpi causa - if D and V are engaging in a criminal enterprise V can’t sue D if someone goes wrong

The defence failed because although Duty of care can be established even if D was carrying out a criminal activity. The sentence of ex turpi causa can’t be used to escape liability in criminal law

Question 40

True or false the D is judged against the standard of the reasonable person performing the activity involved

Answer 40

True

Question 41

What is the equation for breach

Answer 41

Breach = D’s act or omission fails below standard expected if the reasonable person doing that activity + d must foresee a risk of death

Question 42

Explain the case of Misa

Answer 42

F: v had an operation in his knee. The two D’s were senior doctors who were responsible for the post op care of V. They failed to identify and treat an infection V died. The D’s were convicted and appealed on the basis that the elements of GN manslaughter were uncertain and so breached Act 7 of the ECHR

H: the breach of duty must create a risk of death. Risk of bodily injury or injury to health is NOT enough

Question 43

What are the criminal rules on causation

Answer 43

Factual test - but for (white) 
Legal test- operating and substantial cause
Novus actus interveniens = 
Act of 3 rd party (pagett)
Act of victim (Roberts) 
Medical intervention (chesire) 
Exception : thin skull rule (blaue)

Question 44

Which was the first case that stated that D being negligent isn’t enough it has to be ‘Gross’

Answer 44

Bateman 1925

Question 45

What did Lord Mackay say about adomako

Answer 45

“Having regard time the risk of death involved was the conduct of D so bad as to amount to a criminal act or omission

Question 46

What is the said in the well known statement on the issue made by Lord he wary CJ in Bateman

Answer 46

“ in order to establish criminal liability the facts must be such that in the opinion of the jury the negligence if the accused went beyond a mere matter of compensation between subjects and showed such disregard for the life and safety of others as to amount to a crime against the state and conduct deserving punishment”

Simplified: there are no fixed limits on what GN could mean. The only limiting factor is the jury’s common sense

Question 47

Explain the case of litchfield

Answer 47

F: D a ships captain followed an unsafe course and relied too heavily on his engines even through he knew the fuel was contaminated. The ship founded off the Cornish coast and 3 crew members were drowned.
H: it is up to the jury to decide whether or not negligence is gross negligence even though negligently endangering a ship is a statutory offence. The question for the jury is whether it amounts to the crime of manslaughter