Involuntary Manslaughter Flashcards
UAM actus reus and mens rea
Defendant carries out an unlawful act
Which is a dangerous Act
That causes death
The mens rea for the original unlawful act is needed.
Unlawful Act - cases and their rules
Franklin - cant be a civil act - must be criminal
Lowe - Failed to feed baby - must be an ACT and not an omission
Lamb - All elements of the unlawful act must be satisfied
Dangerous Act - case and what was said
Newbury & Jones - It does not matter if the Defendant didn’t see a risk of harm.
It was also said that the unlawful act must be such as all sober and reasonable people would foresee some risk of harm.
Causes Death - cases - causation
Factual cause - ‘but for’ - would it have happened if it wasn’t for D’s actions/omissions - R v White
Legal cause - more than ‘de minimus’ - R v Kimsey. Must be operating and substantial cause - R v Benge
No new intervening acts that break the chain of causation - Novus Actus Interveniens - Kennedy, Jordan, Malcherek, Roberts
GNM requirements
Duty to care
Breach of that duty
Reasonably foreseeable risk of death
Causes death
Negligence is gross
Duty to care - examples (____ to ____)
Parents to kids - Edwards
Doctors to patients - Adomako
ADDITIONAL CASES:
Landlords to tenants - Singh
Employers to employees - Dean
Duty to care - cases and what is said from the case - E___
Evans - D has duty to care where actions have foreseeable risk to others around them
An example would be Wacker
Breach of Duty - the rule
The Defendant did not show the level of care that they were required to show to the Victim - Adomako
Breach of Duty - cases
Evans - overdose, didn’t call hospital
Singh - landlord, gas leak
Reasonable foresight of Death - the rule
There must be a reasonable and obvious risk of death - Adomako
Reasonable foresight of Death - cases
Rose - rare condition in kid - unnoticed
Kuddus - chef - nut allergy
Causes Death
Factual cause - ‘but for’ - would it have happened if it wasn’t for D’s actions/omissions - R v White
Legal cause - more than ‘de minimus’ - R v Kimsey. Must be operating and substantial cause - R v Benge
No new intervening acts that break the chain of causation - Novus Actus Interveniens - Kennedy, Jordan, Malcherek, Roberts
Negligence is gross - defined through case law
Bateman - D’s actions went beyond ‘a mere matter of compensation’
Adomako - D’s actions were serious enough to grant a criminal conviction
