Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

law shhs > Criminal Law Involuntary M > Flashcards

Criminal Law Involuntary M Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
Civil Procedure 1L flashcards MBE flashcards MPRE flashcards
1
Q

What is involuntary m

A

When the D lacks the MR for murder. They had no intention to kill and may not have had any intention to harm the victim

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

What is gross negligence m

A

This is where the D is so careless in their conduct that causes the death is classed as criminal.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

What is unlawful act m

A

This is where someone is killed when the D was in course of committing another crime, also known as constructive manslaughter

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

What is the MR for involuntary M

A

Recklessness, gross negligence or a MR related to another offence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

4 parts to gross negligence m

A

-The D owed the victim a duty of care
-The D breached that duty
-The breach if duty caused death
-The acts or omissions of the D were so grossly negligent that they could be classed as criminal
-

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

4 parts to unlawful act m

A
  • The D committed an intentional act- MR
  • The act committed was criminally unlawful
  • The act committed was dangerous
  • The act committed caused the death of the victim
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

R v Ball 1989

A

The D’s act was deliberate and criminally unlawful. The test for for whether the act was dangerous is not based on the D’s viewpoint but on an objective test

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

R v Lamb 1967

A

For unlawful act m, there must be a criminal act

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Unlawful act- what does the objective test determine

A

Whether the act of the D is dangerous

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Unlawful act- objective test

What must the reasonable person recognise

A

That the act of the D would cause the other person ‘some harm’, but the D does not need to foresee the exact type of harm

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

R v JM and SM 2012

A

Neither the D nor the reasonable person need to foresee any specific harm or the type of harm that was the result

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Breaking the chain of causation

2 key cases

A

R v Cato 1976

R v Kennedy 2007

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

R v Cato 1976

A

The D had unlawfully taken heroin into his possession and had done an unlawful act

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

R v Kennedy 2007

A

Self-injection by the victim breaks the chain of causation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Gross negligence

R v Adomako 1995

A

All of the elements for gross negligence were present in this case and confirmed by the House of Lords

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Gross negligence m

R v Winter 2010

A

The test used to determine a duty of care relationship is reasonable foreseeability

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Gross negligence m

What test is used to determine whether the act is grossly negligent, which is decided by the jury

A

An objective test

18
Q

Gross negligence m

what is an objective test used to determine

A

To determine whether the act is grossly negligent, which is decided by the jury

19
Q

Gross negligence m

what case was the degree of negligence for the objective test addressed in

A

R v Misra and Srivastava (2004)

20
Q

Gross negligence m

what case is legal and factual causation applied in

A

R v Wacker 2003

21
Q

Gross negligence m

R v Wacker 2003 LP

A

The factual causation and that if the ventilator to the container had not been closed, the immigrants would have survived.

22
Q

Corporate m

key case

A

R v kite and OLL Ltd 1994

23
Q

Corporate m

R v Kite and OLL Ltd 1994- LP

A

Mr Kite was the directing mind and will of the company under the principle of identification

24
Q

Corporate m

what do the courts have to use to find who was behind the corporate ma

A

The principle of iddentification

25
Q

Corporate m

what are the problems with the method of finding the principle of identification (2)

A
  • The bigger the company, the more difficult it is to find this ‘directing mind and will’
  • Where several people have contributed to a dangerous situation, the principle will not work
26
Q

Corporate m

give an example of a campaign group

A

Families Against Corporate Killings (FACK)

27
Q

Corporate m

What did the the Law Commission do in 1996

A

They recommended a separate offence of corporate killing based on management failure in a company to provide a safe system of conducting the company’s activities

28
Q

Corporate m

Before 2006- what 2 elements had to be proved

A

1) The principle of identification whereby a person has to be found who was the ‘directing and controlling mind of the company’

2) The four elements of gross negligence manslaughter are:
- duty
- breach
- death
- gross negligence

29
Q

Corporate m

Reasons for the new act

A
  • How can a MR be established when a company has no mind?
  • The larger the company, the more difficult it is to identify the ‘directing mind and will’
  • Where more than one person contributed to a dangerous situation, the principle of identification could not work.
30
Q

Corporate m

What was no longer required after 2008

A

The principle of identification is no longer required

31
Q

Corporate m

what is the corporate act

A

Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007

32
Q

Corporate m

what is section 1 of the act

A
  • States that an organisation is guilty of an offence if the way in which its activities are managed or organised:
  • could be a person’s death
  • accounts to gross breach of a relevant duty of care owed by the organisations to the deceased
33
Q

Corporate m

what does section 8 of the act state

A

Factors that the jury must consider:

  • How serious the breach was
  • How much of a risk of death it posed
34
Q

Corporate m

what must the breach directly be linked to

A

To serious management failure

35
Q

Corporate m

state the definition of senior management from s1 of the Homicide Act 1957

A

‘Persons who play a significant role in the management of the whole or substantial part, of the organisations’ activities’

36
Q

Corporate m- summary

What does the offence of corporate manslaughter require

A

-Proof of a serious management failure resulting in a gross breach of duty of care which causes death

37
Q

Corporate m

3 cases that involve serious management failure

A
  • R v Pyranha Mouldings Ltd 2015
  • R v Lion Steel Ltd 2012
  • R v Cotswold Geotechnical Holdings 2011
38
Q

Corporate m

R v Lion Steel Ltd 2012 LP

A

The serious management failure was that the company failed to provide suitable supervision, training and safety equipment

39
Q

Corporate m

R v Cotswold Geotechnical Holdings 2011 LP

A

The serious management failure was that the company’s system of work for digging trial pits was ‘wholly and unnecessarily dangerous’ and that industry guidelines had been ignored

40
Q

Corporate m

R v Pyranha Mouldings Ltd 2015 LP

A

The serious management failure was the ‘fundamentally unsafe’ maintenance work and the choice of this particular design of oven

41
Q

Corporate m

3 examples of negligence:

A
  • Failing to provide proper training
  • Supervision
  • Safety equipment

law shhs (6 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions