Exam Revision Flashcards
Gross negligence manslaughter - R v Rose
- D owed a DOC
- D negligently breached it
- It was reasonably foreseeable
- The breach caused death
- Breach was so bad it amounted to gross negligence
U and D act manslaughter
- Unlawful act
- Was dangerous
- That act caused the death of the victim - AG’s ref 3
An unlawful act that a reasonable person would think would risk some harm, albeit not serious harm
Church
Criticisms of Unlawful and dangerous act manslaughter
- Offence is too broad
- To label a person who envisaged no more than a battery a manslaughterer is disproportionate and unfair
- Breaches principle of correspondence
- An extreme form of constructive liability (grossly exaggerates the amount of culpability)
- Attributes too much weight to chance of whether someone commits a battery and faces 6 months or life imprisonment
Peter Sparks argument
The defence of diminished responsibility is flawed. D’s mental abnormality ahould be a complete defence if it is the reason they killed or no defence at all if they would’ve killed anyway.
Loss of control - coroners and justice act 2009 s54
- D lost self control
- Caused by a qualifying trigger of fear of serious violence, things done or said of grave character creating a justifiable sense of being wronged.
- A person of D’s age or sex with a normal degree of tolerance and self restraint would have reacted the same in D’s circumstances
If D acts out of a desire for revenge the defence will fail
Loss of control - s54 c&j 2009
Slow burn anger response
Ahluwalia - loss of control
Sexual Infidelity cannot be a thing done or said in loss of control
S55(6) c&j 2009
The loss of control need not be sudden
S54(2) c&j 2009
Baker and Zhao argument
Sexual infidelity should not be considered at all in loss of control not even as context
Andrew Ashworth argument
The ladder principle demands the proportionate wrongfulness of the offence should be pointed out by the label attatched to that offence. Accurate labelling promotes transparency.
Law commission consultation paper 2005
Proposed separating murder into 2 degrees. 1st (intention to kill) and 2nd (intention to do gbh)
Lord Steyn in Powell
Including intention to do gbh in murder turns it into a constructive crime. A person who only intended gbh is not ‘in truth’ a murderer
Mandatory life sentence criticism
- Different murders have different degrees of culpability
- Intention to cause gbh does not seem fair to always be a life sentence
Indirect intent - Woolin
Virtually certain and D knew it