Invol Manslaughter - UAM Flashcards

1
Q

What is the other name for Unlawful Act Manslaughter

A

Constructive Manslaughter

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Why is Unlawful Act Manslaughter also called Constructive Manslaughter

A

Because this type of invol manslaughter is built on a other unlawful offence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

What the range of sentencing powers for judges for invol manslaughter

A

From non-custodial sentences to life imprisonment depending on the situation
It is also based on the judges discretion

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

How many elements are there for UMA

A

4

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

What are the 4 elements of UMA

A

There must be an unlawful act
It must be dangerous
It must cause death and,
D must have the MR for the unlawful act

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

What is the first stage of UMA

A

There must be an unlawful act

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

What is meant by ‘There must be an unlawful act’ for the first stage of UMA

A

UMA must be based on a criminal act and not an omission
If cannot establish a criminal act on Ds part = not liable

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Which case showed that there was no criminal act so not liable for UMA and involved the trespass off the stolen box (not criminal)

A

Franklin

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Which case involved a mistress falling onto a brandishing blade (assault)

A

Larkin

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Which case showed that because there was no assault as the boy was not scared then D was not liable UMA

A

Lamb

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Which case showed that neglect of a child is an omission and is not classed as a criminal act of UMA

A

Lowe

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Which case argued that Ds presence was not enough to make an assault to built to UMA

A

Arobieke

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Which case showed the even if V consents, the act may still be unlawful

A

Cato

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

What is the second stage of UMA

A

The act must be dangerous on ann objective test

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Which case come up with the dangerousness test

A

Church

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

What is the dangerousness test

A

The sober and reasonable man does not have to foresee the exact type of harm that V suffers, but only foresee some harm

17
Q

Which case showed that only some harm needs to be forseeable and involved two brothers being ejected from a night club by the V (Doorman)

18
Q

Can the some foreseeable harm be aimed at property and not a person to still be liable

19
Q

Which case showed that the unlawful act does not have to be directed at people and involved arson off a house

A

Goodfellow

20
Q

What type of harm must it be and who must be able to foresee it

A

For UAM the type of harm must be physical, causing fear is not enough
The sober and reasonable man but be able to foresee the physical harm

21
Q

Which case showed that the reasonable and sober man would not have foreseen the heart condition that caused the death (but retrial still found Ds guilty)

22
Q

Which case showed that the reasonable and sober man woud have recognised some physical harm due to the old mans age - ‘frail’

23
Q

What is the third stage of UAM

A

The act must cause the death - causation

24
Q

What is meant by ‘the act must cause the death’

A

There must be no novus actus interveniens
D must have caused the death in fact as well as be the significant contribution to the death (does not have to be the sole contribution)

25
Q

Which case showed that Ds act was the significant cause of death and involved a man jumping the post office queue

26
Q

Which case showed that the polices ‘robust’ questioning was an intervening act which broke the chain of causation (frail man)

27
Q

Which case involved running as the intervening act as this was the substantial cause of death so Ds were not guilty

28
Q

Which case showed that self-harm (in this case self-injection) breaks the chain of causation

29
Q

Which case showed that the chasing of V by D which is classed as an assault caused the Vs death = UAM

30
Q

What is the final stage of UAM

A

D must have the MR for the unlawful act

31
Q

What is meant by ‘D must have the MR for the unlawful act’

A

For UAM to be established, D must have the MR of the original offence (arson, afray, assault…), which in most cases is intent or recklessness

32
Q

Which case showed that we do not need to foresee any harm or death, just the D had the MR for the unlawful act itself - paving stone killed a train guard

A

DPP v Newbury and Jones

33
Q

Which case showed that the AR and MR do not need to coincide for UAM, as long as D had MR at some point is enough - D punched and dragged unconscious body away and later died