Criminal Law Involuntary M Flashcards
What is involuntary m
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
What is gross negligence m
This is where the D is so careless in their conduct that causes the death is classed as criminal.
What is unlawful act m
This is where someone is killed when the D was in course of committing another crime, also known as constructive manslaughter
What is the MR for involuntary M
Recklessness, gross negligence or a MR related to another offence
4 parts to gross negligence m
-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
-
4 parts to unlawful act m
- 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
R v Ball 1989
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
R v Lamb 1967
For unlawful act m, there must be a criminal act
Unlawful act- what does the objective test determine
Whether the act of the D is dangerous
Unlawful act- objective test
What must the reasonable person recognise
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
R v JM and SM 2012
Neither the D nor the reasonable person need to foresee any specific harm or the type of harm that was the result
Breaking the chain of causation
2 key cases
R v Cato 1976
R v Kennedy 2007
R v Cato 1976
The D had unlawfully taken heroin into his possession and had done an unlawful act
R v Kennedy 2007
Self-injection by the victim breaks the chain of causation
Gross negligence
R v Adomako 1995
All of the elements for gross negligence were present in this case and confirmed by the House of Lords
Gross negligence m
R v Winter 2010
The test used to determine a duty of care relationship is reasonable foreseeability
Gross negligence m
What test is used to determine whether the act is grossly negligent, which is decided by the jury
An objective test
Gross negligence m
what is an objective test used to determine
To determine whether the act is grossly negligent, which is decided by the jury
Gross negligence m
what case was the degree of negligence for the objective test addressed in
R v Misra and Srivastava (2004)
Gross negligence m
what case is legal and factual causation applied in
R v Wacker 2003
Gross negligence m
R v Wacker 2003 LP
The factual causation and that if the ventilator to the container had not been closed, the immigrants would have survived.
Corporate m
key case
R v kite and OLL Ltd 1994
Corporate m
R v Kite and OLL Ltd 1994- LP
Mr Kite was the directing mind and will of the company under the principle of identification
Corporate m
what do the courts have to use to find who was behind the corporate ma
The principle of iddentification
Corporate m
what are the problems with the method of finding the principle of identification (2)
- 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
Corporate m
give an example of a campaign group
Families Against Corporate Killings (FACK)
Corporate m
What did the the Law Commission do in 1996
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
Corporate m
Before 2006- what 2 elements had to be proved
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
Corporate m
Reasons for the new act
- 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.
Corporate m
What was no longer required after 2008
The principle of identification is no longer required
Corporate m
what is the corporate act
Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007
Corporate m
what is section 1 of the act
- 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
Corporate m
what does section 8 of the act state
Factors that the jury must consider:
- How serious the breach was
- How much of a risk of death it posed
Corporate m
what must the breach directly be linked to
To serious management failure
Corporate m
state the definition of senior management from s1 of the Homicide Act 1957
‘Persons who play a significant role in the management of the whole or substantial part, of the organisations’ activities’
Corporate m- summary
What does the offence of corporate manslaughter require
-Proof of a serious management failure resulting in a gross breach of duty of care which causes death
Corporate m
3 cases that involve serious management failure
- R v Pyranha Mouldings Ltd 2015
- R v Lion Steel Ltd 2012
- R v Cotswold Geotechnical Holdings 2011
Corporate m
R v Lion Steel Ltd 2012 LP
The serious management failure was that the company failed to provide suitable supervision, training and safety equipment
Corporate m
R v Cotswold Geotechnical Holdings 2011 LP
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
Corporate m
R v Pyranha Mouldings Ltd 2015 LP
The serious management failure was the ‘fundamentally unsafe’ maintenance work and the choice of this particular design of oven
Corporate m
3 examples of negligence:
- Failing to provide proper training
- Supervision
- Safety equipment
