Criminal Law - Manslaughter Flashcards
Andrews v DPP*
Facts: A negligent driver hit and killed a pedestrian. He was not guilty of unlawful act manslaughter
Principles: Unlawful act manslaughter cannot be committed by negligence, as it must be an intentional act.
DPP v Newbury and Jones*
Facts: Two boys killed a train guard by throwing a paving slab from a bridge at a train
Principles: Established the definition of unlawful act manslaughter
R v Adomako*
Facts: A doctor failed to notice that breathing apparatus had disconnected from his patient. The patient died
Principles: Gross negligence manslaughter requires the defendant to owe a duty of care under the normal principles of tort
R v Bateman
Facts: As a result of negligence, a patient died during childbirth
Principles: For gross negligence manslaughter, the negligence must be to such a degree that it amounts to a crime that requires punishment
R v Byram
Facts: The defendant applied a tourniquet to the victim to assist him with his injection of heroin. The victim died of an overdose
Principles: Where the fatal drug is jointly administered, whether the defendant can be held liable will depend on the degree of help the defendant has given the victim
R v Church
Facts: The defendant knocked a women unconscious and threw her into a river, believing her to be dead, where she drowned. He was charged with manslaughter
Principles: The unlawful act is dangerous if it is an act that reasonable people would inevitably recognize must subject the other person to, at least, the risk of some harm
R v Dawson and others
Facts: Three men sought to rob a shop using replica guns. The cashier died of a heart attack, as he suffered from a heart condition. They were convicted of unlawful act manslaughter, but successfully appealed.
Principles: The unlawful act is dangerous if based on the facts known to the defendant, the jury considers it to be dangerous. Here , the defendants did not know about the heart condition, so there was no ‘dangerous’ act.
R v Frankling
Facts: A swimmer died after being hit by a box which the defendant threw off a pier.
Principles: For unlawful act manslaughter, the act must be criminal rather than tortious
R v Kennedy
Facts: The defendant prepared heroin for the deceased, who then injected himself and died of an overdose
Principles: Where the deceased has freely self-administered the drug, the person who provided it should not be held responsible for manslaughter
R v Lamb*
Facts: A boy died after being shot be another. The boys had been playing with a gun which they didn’t believe would go off. The prosecutor argued assault as the basis
Principle: All the elements of the unlawful act must be made out; it is not enough to satisfy only part of the base crime. Here, there was no apprehension of personal violence, so there was no assault.
R v Larkin
Facts: The defendant killed his mistress with a razor which he claimed he had been trying to scare his mistress lover with. An unlawful act had been committed so he was convicted.
Principles: Under the doctrine of transferred malice, the unlawful act does not need to be aimed at the ultimate victim.
R v Litchfield
Facts:The defendant captained a ship. He was negligently travelling near rocks and ran aground. Three crew members died.
Principles: An example of negligence sever enough to be considered a crime.
R v Lowe
Facts: A child died after the parents neglected it. They were not guilty of unlawful act manslaughter.
Principles: Unlawful act manslaughter must be based on a positive act. It cannot be committed by omission.
R v Misra and Srivastava
Facts: Despite clear symptoms, the defendants failed to notice an infection, which remained untreated, leading to death of their patient
Principles: An example of negligence sever enough to be considered a crime.
R v Mitchell
Facts: The defendant pushed an old man in a queue at the post office. He fell over into an old lady who later died
Principles: There is no requirement that the unlawful act be aimed at the ultimate victim
APPLIED Larkin
R v Prentice and other
Facts: Two junior doctors incorrectly administered a drug, leading to their patient’s death
Principles: The negligence was not severe enough to be considered a crime in this case. Others were also responsible to the patient
R v Rudling
Facts: The deceased’s health had been declining for five months. His mother had run the local doctor on a Thursday to inform her of a particular bout of sickness (including that his genitals has turned black) and to ask to see a male doctor. The doctor told the mother to book appointment for the following Monday, but the son died on the Saturday. The doctor was not convicted
Principles: To amount to gross negligence in a medical context, the risk of death must be serious and obvious, not merely a remote possibility or one that would only become apparent on further investigation. In this case, the genitalia turning black did not necessarily indicate a life threatening condition -recognizing a condition as serious is not the same as recognizing a serious risk of death
R v Scarlett
Facts: The defendant threw a drunk customer out of his pub, who died after hitting his head. The defendant appealed his conviction on the grounds that the defenses available to the unlawful act should be available for unlawful act manslaughter
Principles: The normal defenses available to a crime which is used as the basis for unlawful act manslaughter remain available
R v Sellu
Facts:The deceased underwent knee surgery but developed post-operative bowel complications. He was referred to Sellu and underwent colorectal surgey, but he never regain consciousness. Sellu’s conviction was quashed on appeal on the ground that sufficiently detailed instructions on the meaning of gross negligence were not given to the jury.
Principles: Expert evidence can assist the jury in reaching a decision, but whether the negligence amounts to gross negligence is ultimately a question for the jury. The judge should make it clear to the jury that they are not bound by an expert’s opinion and should explain that there is a line between serious mistakes and conduct that is ‘truly exceptionally bad’
SEE ALSO Adomako
R v Singh
Facts: Despite knowing about gas leaks, the defendant (a landlord) failed to fix a carbon monoxide detector in one of his flats, and a tenant died.
Principles: An example of negligence sever enough to be considered a crime
R v Wacker
Facts: A driver carrying illegal immigrants in his lorry failed to open an air vent and numerous people died as a result
Principles: illegality (ex turpi causa) does not apply in cases of gross negligence manslaughter as a matter of public policy. The defendant was still liable even though the immigrants were engaged in an illegal activity.
R v Watson*
Facts: A burglar shouted at an 87-year-old man during a burglary. The victim died of a heart attack.
Principles: Where it is obvious to the reasonable man that the unlawful act is dangerous, it can be held to be so
