Criminal Law - Manslaughter

Question 1

Andrews v DPP*

Answer 1

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.

Question 2

DPP v Newbury and Jones*

Answer 2

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

Question 3

R v Adomako*

Answer 3

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

Question 4

R v Bateman

Answer 4

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

Question 5

R v Byram

Answer 5

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

Question 6

R v Church

Answer 6

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

Question 7

R v Dawson and others

Answer 7

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.

Question 8

R v Frankling

Answer 8

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

Question 9

R v Kennedy

Answer 9

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

Question 10

R v Lamb*

Answer 10

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.

Question 11

R v Larkin

Answer 11

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.

Question 12

R v Litchfield

Answer 12

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.

Question 13

R v Lowe

Answer 13

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.

Question 14

R v Misra and Srivastava

Answer 14

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.

Question 15

R v Mitchell

Answer 15

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

Question 16

R v Prentice and other

Answer 16

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

Question 17

R v Rudling

Answer 17

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

Question 18

R v Scarlett

Answer 18

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

Question 19

R v Sellu

Answer 19

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

Question 20

R v Singh

Answer 20

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

Question 21

R v Wacker

Answer 21

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.

Question 22

R v Watson*

Answer 22

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