Fatel Offences- Involuntary Manslaughter- CRIMINAL LAW (1) Flashcards
what is unlawful act manslaughter also known as
constructive manslaughter
can the D be guilty of UAM even if they didn’t realise that death or injury may occur?
YES
liability for death is built up and constructed from several different elements which ultimately caused the Vs death.
.
what are the 4 elements that a D must be proven for conviction are…
1) the D must do an unlawful act
2) that act must be dangerous on an objective test
3) the act must cause the death
4) the D must have the required mens rea for the unlawful act
define civil wrong
a wrongful act by one person against another for which the other person may recover damages in a lawsuit
what is an unlawful act
any action that violates the law or legal regulations
what is the unlawful act cases
Franklin
Lowe
what is the principle of Franklin
it was stated that the unlawful act must be a criminal offence, a civil wrong (tort) is not enough for the purpose of unlawful act manslaughter
decided a civil wrong was not enough
what is the principle for Lowe
there must be a positive physical act.
an omission cannot create liability for unlawful act manslaughter
give some examples of offences which are unlawful acts
arson
criminal damage
burglary
what is a dangerous act
the unlawful act must be dangerous from an objective basis
what is the church test
whether the unlawful act was likely to cause harm to someone
what are the 5 cases for dangerous acts
1) Church (1966) - church test
2) Mitchell (1983) - transferred malice
3) Goodfellow (1986) - transferred malice from property to person
4) Dawson (1985) - apprehension is not enough
5) Watson (1989) - fragility, thin skull rule
in church (1966) it was stated:
the sober and reasonable person would foresee that some harm might occur from the defendant’s actions, it does not have to be serious harm.
reasonable person test
this means in simple terms= they are an ordinary, sober person in the street, in the same situation as the D
what is the principle for mitchell
The dangerous, unlawful act does not need to be aimed at the victim.
it can be aimed at another person and D’s men rea for their intended victim can transfer to their actual victim
Transferred malice
what is the principle for Goodfellow
it was stated that the unlawful act does not need to be aimed at a person; it can be aimed at property as long as it carries the risk of causing some physical harm
malice does transfer from property to person in manslaughter but not in murder
what is the principle for Dawson
something that causes fear and apprehension is not sufficient
this is the case even if it causes the victim to have a heart attack
thin skull rule didnt apply here
D was not guilty
what is the principle of Watson
however in Watson it contradicted Dawson that where a reasonable person would be aware of the victims fragility and the risk of physical harm to him, then the D will be liable
It was obvious to the reasonable person that the V was old and frail as it was something that can be seen
D is guilty
The unlawful act must cause the V’s death.
What are the 3 elements for causation
factual cause- but for test- Pagett
legal cause- more than a minimal cause- Kimsey
no intervening acts- medical treatment- jordan
what happens if there is an intervening act which breaks the chain of causation?
the D cannot be liable for manslaughter
what is the mens rea for unlawful act manslaughter
must have the intention for the unlawful act the D did.
it must be proved that the D had the mens rea for the unlawful act, but it is not necessary for the D themselves to realise that the act is unlawful or dangerous.
what is the case and legal principle for mens rea for UAM
Newbury and Jones#
it must be proved that the D had the mens rea for the unlawful act, but it is not necessary for the D themselves to realise that the act is unlawful or dangerous.
what is the A01 for UAM
1) unlawful act
- criminal act(not a civil wrong)- Franklin
- must be a positive act(cannot be an omission)- Lowe
2) unlawful act was dangerous
- church test
- does not have to be aimed at V- Mitchell
- can be aimed at property- Goodfellow
- must be physical harm- Dawson
- fragility- watson
3) D’s unlawful act caused the V’s death
- factual cause- pagett
- legal cause- kimsey
- intervening acts- medical treatment- jordan
4) mens rea
- D had the mens rea for the unlawful act
- does not have to realise his act was dangerous or foresee a risk of harm- Newbury and Jones
what’s the other type of involuntary manslaughter
gross negligence manslaughter
what is gross negligence manslaughter
committed where the D owes a duty of care but breaches a duty in a very negligent way, causing the death of the V
can be committed through an act or omission, yet neither must be unlawful
however unlawful act manslaughter cant be committed through an omission
what is the leading case for gross negligence manslaughter
Broughton (2020)
where the test for GNM was re-established
and was appealed and now not guilty
what is the test for gross negligence manslaughter
1) the D must owe a duty of care to the V
2) D must breach that duty of care
3) At the time of the breach, there must be a serious and obvious risk of death.
4) it must be reasonably foreseeable at the time that the breach gives rise to a serious and obvious risk of death
5) the breach must cause or significantly contribute to the death of the V
6) the jury must consider that the breach justifies criminal sanction
A breach must be so gross and seriously disregard the life and safety of others
what is the care to show D must owe a legal duty of care
Robinson
where it was stated a duty of care can be established using evidence case law precedents
what are the 6 examples of duty of care situations
1) a doctor owes a duty of care to their patients as shown in Adomake
2) a landlord owes a duty of care to their tenants as shown in Singh
3) a person owes a duty of care to their criminal co-conspirators as shown in
Wacker
4) a parent owes a duty of care to their child as shown in Harris and Harris
5) a parent owes a duty of care if they have set in motion a chain of events as shown in Evans
6) a chef owes a duty of care to their customers as shown in the case R v Kuddus
The lead case Broughton confirms what about the breach of duty of care
It must be proven that this breach caused, or significantly contributed to the death of the V
did the d negligently do or fail to do something. can be a positive act or an omission
what does Adomake state about the duty of care
a breach of duty will occur once the D’s conduct falls bellow the standard of the reasonable person
what does Broughton state about the risk of death
has established at the time of the D’s breach of duty there must be a reasaonably foreseeable ‘serious and obvious risk of death’ for a successful GNM conviction
what does the case R v Kuddus show about the risk of death
the courts should consider whether there is a serious and obvious risk of death based on the facts that the defendant knows at the time of the breach of duty
what is the outcome of the case R v Kuddas
here there was not a reasonably foreseeable serious and obvious risk of death because Mr Kuddus did not know about the nut allergy at the time that he made and sent the meal to her
what does Broughton show about the causes of death
if there is uncertainty surrounding causation then the D will not be guilty of GNM. Any uncertainties with causation must go in D’s favour.
what are the causation tests
1) must be the factual cause (but for test) (Pagett)
2) must be the legal cause (more than a minimal cause test) (kimsey)
3) must have no intervening acts (jordan for medical treatment)
who decides if the conduct of the D was gross in all circumstances to amount to a criminal act or omission that deserves criminal sanction
the jury
what does the word gross mean
the D’s actions were so ‘flagrant and atrocious’, that their actions should amount to a crime
the D’s actions were so ‘flagrant and atrocious’, that their actions should amount to a crime
what case shows this
R v Cornish (2016)
here the actions of the D were not so gross that they would amount to a crime as they followed all of the correct procedures.
what does Andrews v DPP state
Lord Atkins stated that a very high degree of negligence was needed “a criminal disregard for the life and safety of others” to satisfy this
what’s the difference between unlawful act manslaughter and gross negligence manslaughter
gross negligence must have a duty of care
