Fatal offences Flashcards
Murder
Murder has never been defined in statute in uk law, it remains a common law offence . Best defined by sir Edward coke : “ the unlawful killing of, of a reasonable person in being under the kings peace with malice aforethought , express or implied “
Prosecution for murder
A British citizen can be tried for murder in domestic courts for a murder alleged to have occcured in any other country. Prosecution can be brought any time after the death of the victim , however if it is after three years then the consent of the attorney general is required. ( previously the ‘ year and a day rule existed )
Actus reus - key elements of murder
Unlawful killing
A reasonable person in being under the kings peace
Death results of defendants acts or omissions
When might a killing be lawful ?
Self defence as long as the use of force is reasonable in the circumstances
War
Death penalty
What is meant by a reasonable person in being ie who might not be a person ?
- a foetus in the womb - not a reasonable person - if fully expelled from mum then it can be
- attorney general ref no.3 of 1994 - where foetus deliberately injured the child dies from these injuries after having been born D could be criminally liable
- unborn child considered as human wouldn’t be classed as human
- brain dead - doctors often have to turn off life support and are protected from being criminally liable Malcherek and steel 1981
Attorney generals ref no 3 of 1994
B stabbed his pregnant girlfriend , who then prematurely gave birth to s . S was wounded in the stabbing and died after 121 days after being born prematurely. B was charged with murder of s, but was acquitted after it was held that he could not in law be convicted of murder or manslaughter as a result of harm done to a child in utero and that there could be no transferred malice of the intent to harm from the mother to the foetus .
R v malcherek & steel 1981
Two separate appeals were heard together .
In malcherek the defendant had stabbed his wife. In steel the defendant was accused of sexually assaulting and beating a women over the head with a stone. In both cases the victims had been taken to hospital and placed on life support machines. The doctors in the respective cases later switched off the life support machines as both victims were not showing any activity in their brain stem. The defendants sought to argue that the doctors actions constituted a novus interveniens which broke the chain of causation. The test of death is where the brain stem has died. Thus at the time of switching off the machine , the victims were already dead. The doctors could not therefore be the cause of death.
What is meant under the kings peace?
Wartime- killing the enemy in war
- killing a prisoner of war
- this would be classified as under kings peace and so to kill a pow, the air would be present
What is omission ?
- death can result not only from a positive act but from an omissions or failure to act. If the d has a duty towards the v and fails to act the ar may exist .
- duty from a relationship stone v dobinson 1977 parent and child
- duty created accidentally by d when d has created a dangerous chain of events r v miller
Causation
It must be proven that there is a direct and unbroken link between the d’s act and the criminal consequence . The death of the v must be the direct result of the d’s conduct . There must be factual and legal causation
- factual - but for
- legal operating and substantial cause
If the chain is broken - there is no liability for the unlawful homicide
What is factual causation ?
White - no direct link between w’s act and the death of the v must.
- acquitted of murder convicted of attempted murder
- Pagett- p armed with a shot gun , used the v has a human shield which resulted in her being shot by police. Held that but for ps actions she would she would not have died. His conduct was the direct actual cause of her death.
- convicted of man slaughter
What is legal causation ?
Substantial > minimal cause of death
- the conduct must be more than a minimal cause
Must be more than slight or trifling
Cato - drug addicts spent the night injecting each other with herion/ water. Both became very ill and 1 died
Mutual injection was more than a minimal cause and accelerated the v’s death.
Taking the victim as you find them known as the thin skull rule
Blaue- d stabbed the v . She required a blood transfusion but due to her religion she refused and died. D was guilty of murder
What are novus actus interveniens ?
Chain of causation can be broken by a new independent act and d was no longer responsible for the consequence .
- this act must be sufficiently different and serious.
- it could be the act of a 3 rd party an unforeseeable happening or by the v how did these intervening acts affect the outcome of the case?
Jordan - v stabbed to the stomach and was recovering in hospital. Was given antibiotics + liquid. Previously he had an allergic reaction. He suffered a severe allergic reaction and died. Held that actions of the medical staff were main cause of death not initial stab wound
- d was not guilty of murder
Smith - soldier taken to medical center for stab wound and was dropped on the way. Staff tried to artificially respirate by pumping on chest which made the condition worse and he died. - the treatment had drastically reduced chances of survival original attacker found guilty of murder.
What are actions taken by the victims ?
Is death the direct result of D actions , of the independent act of the v ? If the threat is serious , then more reasonable to take evasive action, and the chain might not be broken.
Robert’s
D drove down a side road and subjected v to unwanted sexual advances. V jumped out of the moving car to escape and was injured. D was liable for the injuries as direct line of causation between conduct and injuries which hadn’t been broken by her actions.
Williams
V jumped out of a moving car because d tried to steal his wallet. This was an unreasonable reaction and disproportionate to the threat. Chain of causation was broken by the v intervening acts. D was not liable for injuries.
What is malice aforethought , express and implied ?
Malice - doesn’t actually need to be present - murder can obviously come due to other motives e.g love , compassion
Aforethought- no previous planning / thinking needed either - just that the intention isn’t after the act
Men’s rea for murder
Intention to kill or cause GBH
OR
implied malice aforethought, which is intention to cause grevious bodily harm gbh
What is direct intention? ,
Vickers - D broke into v’s sweet shop cellar. He knew that the owner was an old lady who was deaf. The owner came into the cellar and saw the D. He attacked v by punching her and kicking her in the head when she discovered him. She died from the injuries
- held , intention to inflict GBH resulting in the death of v , was enough to imply the necessary intention to commit murder.
What is indirect intention?
- D did not intend a particular result , but in acting the way they did, realised that it might occur
Moloney 1985
D was drinking with the v. They had a contest to see who could who could load his gun and be ready to fire first. D was quicker, pointed his gun at the v and fired killing him instantly.
On appeal - held that nothing less than the actual intention to kill or cause serious harm should be MR for murder.
Foresight of consequences was not in itself intention - instead foresight could be evidence from which jury might infer intention. Legal principle foresight is not intention it is evidence of intention.
Hancocks and shankland 1986
D’s were striking miners who knew a taxi carrying men breaking the strike to work would pass along the road. They waited on a bridge above and dropped a concrete block which hit the taxi , killing the driver. D’s claimed they intended to block the road not kill or injure anyone. On appeal - HoL held, the degree of probability of death / injury is of paramount importance. The greater the probability of a consequence the more likely it is that the consequence was foreseen. If the consequence was foreseen, the greater the probability it was intended. Legal principle the greater the probability of a consequence, the more likely the consequence was foreseen and if a consequence was foreseen the greater the probability it was intended.
Nedrick 1986
D poured paraffin through the letterbox of a house with the intention of frightening the women who lived there. A child died in the resulting fire. “ virtual certainty test “ do the jury feel that death or serious injury was the virtually certain result of d’s voluntary act? Did the d foresee that death or serious injury was the virtually certain result certain result of his act . If both parts answer yes - the jury can reasonably infer that the d intended the consequences of his act.legal principle indirect intention can exist where the d foresaw a result as virtual certainty test.
Wollin 1998
D lost his temper while feeding his baby son and threw the baby against the wall. The baby died of its injuries.
Edited the nedricks virtual certainty test - if the answers to the questions were ‘yes’ the jury must find rather than infer intention. Legal principle confirmed the virtual certainty test in nedrick.
When does someone commit murder?
A person commits when he kills another with the necessary intent. Intention for murder is nothing less than the intention to kill or cause serious bodily harm . The d’s foresight of the consequences of his actions is no more than evidence from which the jury might infer intent.
What’s the mandatory life sentence?
Aged 18 and over life sentence
Aged 10- 17 detained at his majesty’s pleasure ( the judge has no discretion to change the sentence )
The mandatory life sentence means that the judge cannot change the starting point of the sentence. The defendant can put forward a special defence of loss of control or diminished responsibility to reduce the sentence. The judge can set a minimum number of years that the offender must serve before they can apply for release on licence. Criminal justice act 2003
Whole of life sentence ( predetermined killing of two or more, sexual or sadistic child killing) 30 years murder of police of prison officers , sexual or sadistic killing
15 years other types of murder
This reflects different levels of fault within the crime.
What is voluntary man slaughter ?
There are two partial defences to murder which if plead successfully by d , will lead to a conviction of man slaughter not an acquittal
Loss of control,
Diminished responsibility
( suicide pact. )
This gives the judge the opportunity to give a discreationary life sentence . The defendant has the ar and mr but may have a reason why the murder happened
What are the old law defences ?
Provocation
Diminished responsibility
What are new law defences ?
Loss of control
Diminished responsibility
Suicide pact
What is homicide act 1957 ?
- the old defence of provocation was a common law defence that was given statutory recognition in the homicide act 1957
- the defence can only be used for a murder charge
-the defendant has actus reus of of murder but not men’s rea - allows the judge more discretion over the sentencing
- vm carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment
Old law - provocation
Murder reduced to manslaughter if d suffered a sudden loss of control due to provocation by the victim.
What is s.3 homicide act 1957 - 2 part test ?
1 was the d provoked to lose his self control ( subjective test ) - provoked whether by things done or things said or by both together to lose his self control
2 would a reasonable man have lost his self control in the circumstance (objective test ) - whether the provocation was enough to make a reasonable man do as he did
Coroners and justice act 2009
- changes the partial defences to loss of control
- a successful defence will mean the defendant is found guilty of voluntary manslaughter not murder
New law - loss of control
Coroners and justice act. 2009
- s 54 - sets out circumstances in which this new partial defences applies
- s 55 defines the qualifying triggers
What needs to be proved for loss of control ?
The defendant must have lost self control,
- there must be a qualifying trigger
- a person of same sex and age would have reacted as the defendant in the same circumstances
What is burden of proof ?
- the defendant must put forward sufficient evidence of the possibility of a defence - r v jewellery 2014
R v Jewell 2014
D shot the v at point blank range using a shotgun and fled the scene. He was subsequently arrested in his car, which contained weapons , ammunition and what was described as a survival kit, including spare clothes , a tent a passport a driving licence and a cheque book. At his trial , d told him the jury that when he got out of his car outsides v’s house.
The judge considered that there was insufficient evidence of d having lost self control, and this decision was supported by the court of appeal.
Loss of self control
- did the defendant lose control when they did the act that caused the death ?
- the judge must decide that the defendant has completely lost control
- a partial loss of control is not enough
- the definition used in r v gurpinar 2015 was : “ has d lost his ability to maintain his actions in accordance with considered judgement or has he lost normal powers of reasoning
R v Ahluwailia 1992
The appellant poured petrol and caustic soda on her sleeping husband and then set fire to him. He died six days later from his injuries. The couple had an arranged marriage and the husband had been violent and abusive throughout the marriage. He was also having an affair. On the night of the killing he had threatened to hit her with an iron and told her that he would beat her the next day if she did not provide him with money . At her trial she admitted killing her husband but raised the defence provocation however the jury convicted her of murder. She appealed on the grounds that the judges director. To the jury relating to provocation was wrong and also raised the defence if dismissed responsibility. The judges direction on provocation was correct. The Duffey direction was good law and the judge had directed the jury on the issue of the abuse suffered by the appellant and thus the jury would have considered the affect of this in reaching their verdict. The appeal on the grounds of provocation was therefore unsuccessful.
However the appeal was allowed on the grounds of diminished responsibility, the court did however stress that it was exceptional that fresh evidence would be allowed.
“ ordinarily of course, any available defences should be advances at trial. Accordingly if medical evidence is available to support a plea of diminished responsibility, it should be adduced at the trial. It cannot be too strongly emphasised that this court would acquire much persuasion to allow such a defence to be raised for the first time here if the option had been exercised at the trial not pursue it, otherwise as must be clear defendants might be encouraged to run one defence at trial in the belief that if it fails the court would allow a different defence to be raised and give the defendant in effect two opportunities to run different defences. Nothing could be further from the truth. Likewise, if there is no evidence to support dismissed responsibility at the time of the trial, this court would view any wholly retrospective medical evidence obtained long after the trial with considerable scepticism. “
In what circumstances does the new defence apply ?
D must at the time of the offence have lost self - control resulting in his killing a person in one of three types of situation s known as qualifiying triggers
Things said or done s55 (6) (c)
Things said / done which amount to sexual infidelity are to be disregarded. If d kills v because they have been unfaithful a loc defence cannot be claimed. The thing said / done could still amount to a “ qualifying trigger” if ignoring the sexual infidelity there are other circumstances of an extremely grave character
Clinton. 2012
D and V undergoing. Marriage crisis , financial issue and d clinically depressed v told d she had had an affair with another man. When v came back to the family home, she taunted d with details of her sexual exploits. She said she didn’t want her children to live with him and taunted him about looking up Suicide websites , saying he didn’t have the courage to do it, the day after and beat and strangled v to death. The court of appeal stated that sexual infidelity was not the only trigger, the court order a retrial so the jury considered all matter.
Things said and done - desire for revenge s 54 (4)
The defence is not allowed if the defendant acted in a ‘ considered desire for revenge ‘ if the defendant has time to consider revenge then the response was not sudden.
R v ibrams and Gregory 1981
Following several incidents of threats and harassment, the two defendants made a plan to attack the person who had threatened them. They carried out this plan and killed them two days later. They were convicted of murder and their convictions were upheld , as there was no sudden losss of self - control.
R v Baillie 1995
The defendants youngest son told the defendant that a drug dealer was supplying drugs to all his sons had threatened to punish them for changing to different dealer. The defendant went into a rage and armed with a shotgun and razor and drove immediately to the dealers house. The defendant seriously injured the dealer with a razor and as the dealer was trying to escape the defendant shot and killed the dealer. It was held in court that the defendant had remained out of control and there was no time to cool down between the provocation and the killing therefore the defendant had succeeded in pleading for provocation as a defence to murder.
D fears serious violence and things said / done
If d might not have acted as he did as a result of fear of serious violence alone or things said/ done. However , a combination might have caused him to act in the way he did, allowing for the partial defence of Loc. factors to be considered for loc defence to succeed :
Characteristics
- s 54 - jury needs to take into account whether a person of d sex and age with a normal degree of tolerance and self restraint and in the circumstances of d might have reacted in the same or similar way to d ‘
Same age / sex as d - camplin 1978 - a 15yr old boy killed his sexual tormented. D lost self control - ‘ a person having the power of self control to be expected of a n ordinary person of the sex and age of the accused “ the reasonable man is not confined to an adult male. Would the reasonable man sharing the characteristics of the d, be similarly provoked and react as the accused did ?
Delay
- d loss of self control need not be sudden , it is possible for there to be a delay between the incident causing the loc and the killing
- the delay may be take. Into account :
- by the judge when deciding to leave the defence to the jury
- by the jury when deciding if the killing resulted from a loc
R v Ahluwailia 1992 2
… D had been abused by the v over many years. V threatened d with violence the next day . When he was asleep , d poured petrol over the v and set him alight. Convicted of murder
- appealed on grounds of provocation old law disallowed as too long a delay. Appeal upheld on ground of the old diminished responsibility law - however it is likely that the same facts would successfully be able to use the loss of control defence if they came through the courts now .
Other factors to be considered :
Revenge - loc defence is not available to d who acts from motives of revenge - even where d loses self - control as a result of one of the qualifying triggers
Incitement - loc defence not available where d deliberate incited one of the qualifiying triggger in order to provide and excuse for violence.
Burden of proof
- where the jury, properly directed by the judge feels there is enough evidence to raise the issue of loc it is up to the prosecution to disprove the defence beyond reasonable doubt.
Multiple defendants
- where 1 d successfully pleads a loc defence, it doesn’t necessarily follow that an other d will be convicted of manslaughter rather than murder.
What are the key points for application ?
1 was a qualifying triggers present ? Would it justify a loc ?
2 would an ordinary person of the same age/ she’s as d with an ordinary level of tolerance and self - restraint, and in the same circumstances as the d have acted in the same way?
3 was there a delay between the incident causing the loc and the killing ? How far is it relevant ?
4 was d motivated by revenge , a wish to provoke violence or sexual jealousy?
Voluntary manslaughter - diminished responsibility
Recognised mental condition
Definition- s2 of the homicide act 1957 , amended by s 52 of the coroners and justice act 2009
1 a person who kills or is a party to the killing of another is not the convicted if murder if d was suffering from an abnormality of mental functioning which
A arose from a recognised mental condition.
B substantially impaired d s ability to do one or more things mentioned in subsection 1 a and
C provides and explanation for d’s acts and omissions in doing or being a party to the Killing
What is 1 a for diminished responsibility?
1a
A to understand the nature of d’s conduct
B to form a rational judgement
C to exercise self control,
1B for the purpose of subsection 1c an abnormality of mental functioning provides an explanation for d’s conduct if it causes , or is a significant contributory factor in causing d to carry out that conduct.
S 52 coroner and justice act 2009
1 the defendant is suffering from an abnormality of mental functioning which arose from a recognised mental condition
2 the abnormality of mental functioning must have substantially impaired the defendants ability to : understand the nature of their conduct or form a rational judgment or exercise self control.
R v Byrne 1960
The defendant was a sexual psychopath who strangled a young women and then mutiliated her body. The medical evidence was that, because of his condition was unable to control his perverted desires. He was convicted of murder but the court of appeal quashed the conviction and substituted a conviction for voluntary manslaughter.
What was the cause of the abnormal mental functioning?
- must arise from a recognised mental condition
- icd international classification of diseases isa diagnostic manual used by the world health organisation who
- examples of accepted disorders
Anxiety disorders
Personality disorders
Alcohol dependency
Schizophrenia
Epilepsy
Sleep disorders
Diabetes
What did the law commission 2006 suggest ?
Suggested that developmental immaturity should be included for defendants under 18, as the frontal lobe doesn’t fully enough to control impulsive behaviour till around 14. The government decided that conditions such as autistic spectrum disorder would be covered under recognised conditions relevant to juveniles and that developmental immaturity was nit the same as learning disability.
How is someone substantially impaired ?
The abnormality must have substantially impaired the defendants ability to :
A understand the nature of their own conduct
B for a rational judgement
C exercise self control
R v Lloyd 1967
Substantial does not mean total, nor does it mean trivial or minimal. It is something in between. It is for the jury to decide if the defendants mental responsibility is impaired and if it substantially impaired. The judge can withdraw the fact if there is no evidence on which the jury could conclude this.
R v Golds 2016
D killed his partner and admitted the killing. The medical evidence was that he had an abnormality of mental functioning arising from a medical condition. The only issue was whether he was in a psychotic state at the time of the killing. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction and said the judge is not ordinarily required to define the meaning of substantially. This should only be done where there is a risk that the jury will not understand the meaning of the word. The court directed that substantially in the context of this defence means an impairment which was of some importance or was a serious degree of impairment. It needed to be something more than trivial. The reason for this meaning is that there must be an important reason to reduce murder to manslaughter , not merely a reason which just passes a trivial level .
What needs to be substantially impaired ?
Ability to understand the nature of their act
The defendant is an automatic state
Suffering from delusions
Severe learning difficulties
Ability to form a rational judgment
Paranoia, schizophrenia , battered women syndrome
Ability to exercise self control
R v Byrne unable to control his sexual desires
R v dietschman 2003
The defendant was suffering from depression but was also drunk when he killed the victim. Even through the abnormality was the depression , the court accepted diminished responsibility because even though he may not have killed had he been sober , the depression was a substantial cause.
Burden of proof for diminished responsibility
The defence must prove that the defendant was suffering from diminished responsibility at the time of the offence on the balance of probabilities. Expert evidence is required from at least two witnesses.
Diminished responsibility and intoxication
The abnormality of mental functioning needs to only be a significant contributory factor. Intoxication could also be a factor there are three possibilities to consider :
1 that the defendant was intoxicated at the time of the killing and tries to use the defence diminished responsibility
2 that the defendant was intoxicated and has a pre existing abnormality of mental functioning must
3 that the intoxication is due to an addiction
Intoxication and using the defence
- intoxication on its own cannot be used as a defence
- intoxication is not considered an abnormality of the mind
- the stance was not altered in the coroners and justice act 2009
- it was considered in r v dowds 2012 by the Coa who stated that if parliament had intended to change the law they would have introduced changes to that act
R v dietschman 2003
D was upset because in his view , v was behaving in a way that was disrespectful to the memory of d’S aunt who had just died. He killed v by repeatedly kicking him and stamping on him. The psychiatrists called agreed that’d was suffering from an adjustment disorder in the form of depressed grief reaction to the death of his aunt. However, they disagreed on whether the depression had substantially impaired d’s mental responsibility. He had also drunk large amounts of alcohol before the murder. He was convicted and appealed. Lord Hatton observed that if the jury decided that d would not have killed without taking the drink or drugs it was unlikely it would find that the abnormality on its own was sufficient enough to impair his responsibility .
Intoxication was an addiction
- this is a recognised mental condition and can amount to an abnormality of mental functioning
- this can form the basis of a diminished responsibility defence
R v wood 2008
D was an alcoholic and , after drinking heavily had gone to vs flat. D claimed he had fallen asleep there and been woken by v trying to perform oral sex on him. D repeatedly hit v with a meat cleaver , killing him. At the trial medical experts agreed that’d d was suffering from ads but disagreed as to whether this had damaged his brain. The judge directed the jury that if they found that d had suffered brain damage from his long term abuse of alcohol that the defence of dimished responsibility was available to him . But if they found that he had not suffered brain damage then they had to decide whether the drinking had been voluntary. If it was voluntary , then d could not use the defence.
Evaluation
- the old defence used the phrase ‘ abnormality of the mind’
1 a the defendant suffered from an abnormality of the mind
This could have been depression , mercy killing premenstrual syndrome or battered women syndrome r v Hobson 1997
1 b the abnormality arose from a condition of arrested or retarded development or any inherited causes : or induced by disease of injury
2 the abnormality was a substantial cause of the defendants act of killing
Not necessarily the only cause but an substantial cause
3 the abnormality substantially impaired the defendants mental responsibility for their acts
Involuntary manslaughter- unlawful act
- an unlawful killing when the defendant has no men’s Rea for murder the defendant has no intention of committing murder.
1 unlawful act manslaughter ( constructive manslaughter
2 gross negligence manslaughter
Unlawful act manslaughter - key elements
An act has been committed which is :
Unlawful act
Dangerous objectively
Substantial cause of death
D had the men’s Rea for the unlawful act
Unlawful act
Must be a criminal offence - not a civil wrong
- Franklin 1883 - civil wrong is not enough the defendant threw a box over the pier and it hit a swimmer and killed them
- assault , burglary r v Watson 1989 arson goodfellow 1986 criminal damage dpp v Newbury and jones 1976
Must be an act. - not an omission
Lowe - d was convicted of wilfully neglecting his son and of the manslaughter of his son - conviction quashed by the cofa- a failure to act could not support a conviction of unlawful act manslaughter
Lamb 1967
What caused the death - was there an unlawful act? - l and friend were playing with a revolver which they both knew was loaded. They thought that it would not fire unless one of the bullets was opposite the barrel. They knew there was no bullet in this position , they didn’t realise that the cylinder turned so the next bullet would be fires. L pointed the gun at his friend and pulled the trigger killing him. No unlawful act point a gun was not an assault
The friend didn’t fear any violence from lamb
Dangerous
Church 1966
Such that all sober and reasonable people would inevitably recognise must subject the other person to at least the risk of some harm resulting therefor. , albeit not serious harm “
Some harm
- if a sober and reasonable person realises that some harm can be done by the unlawful act then this part of the test is satisfied .
- it doesn’t matter if the defendant themselves realised there was some risk of harm
- the law commission criticised the concept because a conviction could be based on damage to property
R v Larkin 1943
D threatened another man with an open cut throat razor , in order to frighten him. The mistress of the other man tried to intervene and because she was drunk, accidentally fell onto the open blade which cut her throat and killed her . On appeal d’s conviction for manslaughter was upheld. The act of threatening the other man with the razor was technically assault. It was also an act which was dangerous because it was likely to injure someone.
Humphries explained this I. Judgment when he said : “ where the act which a person is engaged in performing is unlawful then if at the same time it is a dangerous act that is an act which is likely to injure another person and quite inadvertently he causes the death of another person by that act, then he is guilty of manslaughter. “
R v goodfellow 1986
D decided to set fire to his council flat so that the council would have to rehouse him and his family . The fire got out of control and his wife , son and another women died in the fire. He was convicted of manslaughter and appealed p. The coa upheld the conviction because all the elements of unlawful act manslaughter were present :
- the act was unlawful - arson criminal damage act 1971
- reasonable people would recognise that setting a fire would result in some risk of harm
- the act caused the death
- d had the men’s Rea of arson
He intended to set the fire
Physical harm
- the risk of harm refer to physical harm
- causing fear and apprehension is not enough , even if the fear causes shock
- it’s acknowledged that fear can cause shock which can cause physical harm - heart attack
R v Dawson 1985
Three defendants attempted to rob a petrol station. They were masked and armed with a pick axe handles. The petrol station attendant managed to sound the alarm but died from a heart attack . The defendants were charged with unlawful act manslaughter. The conviction was later quashed as the court decided at it was only foreseeable if the victims special condition was known to the defendant.
Carey 2006
3 girls started a fight in which a 4 th suffered minor bruises. The girl later ran away but collapsed after 100m . Her death was from inherent heart condition which had been aggravated by her running. The girls who started the fight convicted of unlawful act manslaughter on a basis of affray. Convictions quashed on grounds that v had not been running away from a serious threat, but to get home . The only dangerous act directed at her was a punch, which didn’t cause her death,
