fatal offences - involuntary manslaughter Flashcards
What are the two types of involuntary manslaughter?
Unlawful act manslaughter
Gross negligence manslaughter
What is meant by involuntary manslaughter?
When the D lacks the mens rea for murder. They had no intention to kill and may not have had any intention to harm the V
What is unlawful act manslaughter?
Liability is built up from a lesser crime - e.g. is the D intended to commit an armed robbery and killed someone while carrying out the offence
To prove an unlawful act manslaughter what is requied?
Positive act
Unlawful act
Dangerous act
The positive act be done with the necessary mens rea
Chain of causation be intact and death ensue
What is meant by a ‘positive act’ in relation to unlawful act manslaughter?
Must be a positive act and not an omission ( is it’s an omission it will be a gross negligence manslaughter)
What is meant by ‘unlawful act’ in relation to an unlawful act manslaughter?
The unlawful act committed must be a crime and not a civil wrong: Assault/battery, ABH/GBH, burglary, robbery, criminal damage including arson, administering a noxious substance
What three cases show ‘unlawful acts’?
R v Ball
DPP v Newbury
R v Lamb
What happened in the case of R v Ball?
D shot V after an argument over the V’s missing vehicle. The D claimed he thought he had loaded the gun with blank cartridges and only intended to scare the V. Courts held that the D intentionally committed an unlawful act
What happened in the case of DPP v Newbury?
2 youths went to watch trains go under the bridge. One day they put a slab of concrete on the bridge and pushed it off ‘for a laugh’. The train appears as the slab is falling and the slab goes through the window killing the train driver. The boys had committed criminal damage which meant they had the mens rea for criminal damage (a lesser crime)
What happened in the case of R v Lamb?
2 young kids found a revolver belonging to the father. They played Russian roulette. The boy pretended to shoot his friend - an assault. they didn’t understand how the gun worked and one of the boys was shot and died
What is meant by ‘danger act’ in relation to an unlawful act manslaughter?
The test to determine whether the act of the D is dangerous is objective. The reasonable person must recognise that the act of the D would cause the other person ‘some harm’, but the D doesn’t need to foresee the exact type of harm
What did the courts decide in the case of R v Church?
It must be ‘such that all sober and reasonable people would inevitably recognise the risk of some harm, although not serious harm’.
What happened in the case of R v Larkin?
The D waved a cut throat razor about intending to frighten his mistress’s lover. He claimed his mistress, who was drunk, fell against the razor and was killed when it cut her throat. Larking committed an unlawful act, namely assault, against the mistress’ lover.
For a act to be considered a ‘dangerous act’ under an unlawful act manslaughter, what must the act be? and what can’t it be? Give a case example:
It must be a risk of physical harm - a risk of emotional harm is not enough : R v JM and SM
What happened in the case of R v JM and SM?
JM and SM had been involved in a fight with a few doormen in a nightclub. One of the doormen, who had no signs of health problems, had a renal artery aneurysm and died. They were charged with affray and manslaughter caused by an unlawful act (affray)
Under the unlawful act manslaughter, what is the situation if the act is against property? Give a case example:
There’s no stipulation that the dangerous act is against a person, it can be aimed at property provided that the Church rule applies: R v Goodfellow
What happened in the case of R v Goodfellow?
D set fire to his council house to get rehoused after being harassed by two men. He obtained petrol from a friends motorbike. His wife, son, and son’s girlfriend were in the house at the time. The court held that the prosecution has to establish that there was no intervening cause between D’s act and the death. The court also ruled that the unlawful act did not need to be directed at the v’s
Under the unlawful act manslaughter, what is the situation regarding fear and apprehension? What case explains this and what are the case facts?
Fear and apprehension will not be enough. In R v Dawson, there was a robbery at a petrol station. The Ds were carrying pickaxe handles. The V sounded the alarm and then promptly dropped dead from a heart attack. The fear caused by the criminal was not enough to make this manslaughter.
What is meant by ‘the positive act be done with the necessary mens rea’ under the unlawful act manslaughter? Give a case example:
It must be shown that the D had mens rea of the unlawful act, they don’t need to realise that the act was unlawful or dangerous: DPP v Newbury
What is meant by ‘ causing the death of the victim’ under the unlawful act manslaughter?
The act committed by the D must cause the death of the V. The courts would apply factual and legal causation. There are a series of issues with intervening acts in relation t the supplying of illegal drugs.
What two cases cover drugs causing the death of the victim?
R v Cato
R v Kenndey
What happened in the case of R v Cato?
Cato and the V prepared their own syringes and injected each other with heroin. The v died. Cato was convicted of manslaughter and administering a noxious thing contrary to s.23 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861
What happened in the case of R v Kennedy?
Established that a D can’t be guilty of manslaughter if they supply a controlled drug to a fully informed and responsible adult who then freely and voluntarily injects themselves with the drug and dies.
What is meant by gross negligence manslaughter?
Negligence means acting carelessly, but while in tort law, this definition isn’t enough for criminal liability. The negligence has to be gross. In other words, the negligence has to be so bad that the actions of he D are considered to be criminal
In what case were the essential elements for gross negligence manslaughter established?
R v Broughton
What elements make up gross negligence manslaughter?
Duty of care
Breach of duty of care
At the time of the breach there was a serious and obvious risk of death
It was reasonably foreseeable at the time of the breach of the duty that the breach gave rise to a serious and obvious risk of death
The breach caused the death of the V
Were the actions of the D so grossly negligent that they could be classed as criminal
What is meant by duty of care under gross negligence manslaughter?
does the D owe the V a duty of care e.g.:
A parent and their child
A teacher for their student
A doctor for their patients
An employer for their employees
A motorist for other road users
Landlords for tenants
What is the key criminal duty of care cases?
Singh 2005
R v Wacker
R v Stone and Dobinson
What happened in the case of Singh 2005?
D was a landlord and the tenant died due to carbon monoxide poisoning caused by a gas boiler. D was found to have had sufficient information about the dangers of defective gas fires to have taken action - they owed their tenants a duty of care. D was found guilty of gross negligence manslaughter
What happened in the case of R v Wacker?
Wacker was a lorry driver who agreed to import illegal immigrants in his lorry. He closed the vents on the lorry to prevent being found out but this sealed the cabin and by the time he made it across the border, the immigrants had died. He had a duty of care to keep them alive and safe, which he failed to do
What happened in the case of R v Stone and Dobinson?
s & D took in a relative who was unwell and bed bound. They assumed a duty of care by taking her in but failed to look after her and left her rotting in her bed. As a result the v died.
What is meant by a breach of duty under gross negligence manslaughter?
Occurs when a person’s conduct fails to meet an applicable standard of care. This is an objective standard - the ‘reasonable person’ as per Blyth v Birmingham
What is meant by ‘causing the death’ under gross negligence manslaughter? and what case explains this?
The usual rules of causation would be applied to any case of gross negligence manslaughter plus there must be a risk of death: R v Misra and Srivastava + R v Wacker
What is meant by the breach must be gross under gross negligence manslaughter?
The fact that negligence has been established isn’t enough to convict them for gross negligence manslaughter. The focus in these cases is whether the actions or conduct of the D were so grossly negligent
What test is used to determined whether an act is grossly negligent?
An objective test decided by the jury
In which case was it first explained that the negligence must be gross?
R v Bateman
What happened in the case of R v Misra and Srivastava?
2 doctors just performed a standard operation on v. The 2 doctors check on their patients they have operated on when checking on the v the wound on the knee is a bit infected. The v then contracts sepsis and toxic shock syndrome, later dying. The doctors owed a duty of care to their patients and didnt meet the applicable standard of care
