Involuntary Manslaughter Flashcards
Q: What is involuntary manslaughter?
Involuntary manslaughter occurs where D causes the death of another, but is not shown to have had the required MR for murder (an intention to kill or cause GBH)
Q: What type of offence is involuntary manslaughter? What is the sentence?
Common law offence.
Triable on indictment- life imprisonment (maximum but not mandatory)
Q: What are the different types of manslaughter?
- Unlawful act manslaughter- killing of another by an unlawful act which was likely to cause bodily harm
- Gross negligence manslaughter- killing of another by gross negligence
Q: What are the 3 elements to the offence of unlawful act manslaughter?
(1) D committed an inherently unlawful act
(2) That the unlawful act is likely to cause bodily harm; and
(3) D had the MR for the unlawful act
Q: What is meant by unlawful act?
The accused’s act must be inherently unlawful, in that it constitutes a criminal offence in its own right, irrespective of the fact that it ultimately results in someone’s death. An act that only becomes unlawful by virtue of the way in which it is carried out will not be enough.
Q: Case- unlawful act manslaughter
Andrews v DPP 1937- If someone drives dangerously and thereby causes the death of another, the act of driving, albeit carried out in a way that attracts criminal liability, is not an ‘unlawful act’ for the purposes of unlawful act manslaughter.
Q: What if someone uses a motor vehicle to commit an unlawful act?
If D uses a MV as a means to commit an unlawful act (eg: an assault) he can be charged with manslaughter as long as the ‘act’ goes beyond poor driving.
Unlawful act manslaughter will be considered the most appropriate charge when there is evidence to prove that the vehicle was used as an instrument of attack (but where the necessary intent for murder was absent), or to cause fright, and death resulted.
Q: Does the unlawful act need to be directed at a certain person?
Goodfellow 1986- The inherently unlawful act need not be directed or aimed at anyone and can include acts committed against or towards property, such as criminal damage or arson.
Q: Is an omission sufficient for this offence?
No- it has to be an unlawful ACT.
Q: What is meant by the fact that the unlawful act is likely to cause bodily harm under (2)?
The unlawful act must involve a risk of some bodily harm (albeit not serious harm).
That risk will be judged objectively- would the risk of harm be foreseen by a reasonable and sober person watching the act.
Q: x2 Cases- an unlawful act that is likely to cause bodily harm
Newbury 1977- dropping a paving stone off a bridge into the path of a train.
Pagett 1983- firing a gun at police officers and then holding someone else in front of you when officers return fire
Q: What type of ‘harm’ must it be?
The harm likely to result from the act must be physical.
Emotional or psychological harm is not enough.
Q: What if physical injury is brought on by shock?
Carey 2006- 15-year-old girl was slapped in the face by bullies suffered slight injuries. She ran off in fear and later died the same night. Unknown to anyone she had a severely diseased heart and the shock brought on a heart attack. Medical evidence suggested that she may not have died had she not been running. In this case, a sober and reasonable person would not have recognised a risk of shock leading to a heart attack in the case of an apparently healthy young girl being accosted by a gang of bullies. The affray was not dangerous enough for the purpose of constructive manslaughter.
This may have been a different outcome if it was a burglary of a frail, elderly person’s home.
Q: When does V’s own conduct break the chain of causation?
V’s conduct in trying to escape D will not break the chain of causation if it could be considered a reasonably foreseeable reaction.
It would only break the chain if it went beyond the range of responses which might be regarded as reasonable, given the threat posed by D and V’s circumstances.
If V’s act was wholly disproportionate to the nature of the threat posed then D will not be liable because the chain of causation has been broken.
Q: Can drug dealers who supply controlled drugs be held liable for the death of their victims if they overdose on the supplied drug?
Drug dealers who supply controlled drugs cannot generally be held liable for the ultimate deaths of their ‘victims’ unless they have done far more than just supply a drug (Dalby 1982). V’s own decision to take the drugs breaks the chain.
Kennedy 2007- D prepared and gave a syringe containing heroin for the deceased before leaving the room. Deceased injected the drug and died. HOL ruled a supplier of a drug is not guilty of manslaughter where the deceased freely and voluntarily self-administered the drug. An omission to do something will not suffice as manslaughter by unlawful act requires an act.
The drug dealer must do more than supply eg: inject etc…
