Involuntary manslaughter Flashcards
The defendant suffers from alcohol dependence syndrome which is a recognised medical condition. After the defendant has had a stressful day at work, he returns home and drinks several whiskeys, only the first of which is voluntary. During the evening, his behaviour becomes more and more irrational and he begins pacing the room, muttering that his employer is “out to get him”. When his partner tries to reassure him, the defendant becomes aggressive and accuses her of being a spy for his employer. When she denies this, the defendant shouts at her that she is a liar; he then picks up his laptop and smashes it over his partner’s head. She suffers a bleed on the brain from which she subsequently dies.
In his police interview, the defendant accepts that he intended to cause serious bodily harm to his partner, and he is charged with her murder.
Which statement best describes whether the defendant may rely upon the partial defence of diminished responsibility to reduce his liability from murder to voluntary manslaughter?
A-Because the defendant suffers from an abnormality of mental functioning arising from a recognised medical condition (alcohol dependence syndrome), he will always succeed in pleading the partial defence of diminished responsibility.
B-The defendant cannot rely upon the partial defence of diminished responsibility because he had been drinking whiskey at the time he killed his partner, and the abnormality of mental functioning must be the sole cause of his acts.
C-When determining if the defendant’s mental responsibility for his partner’s death was substantially impaired as a result of his alcohol dependence syndrome, the jury must focus on the alcohol consumed as a result of this and ignore the first whiskey he consumed.
D-The defendant will succeed in establishing diminished responsibility if he can prove that his alcohol dependence syndrome had any effect on his ability to form a rational judgment, and here the defendant thought his partner was a spy for his employer.
E-In determining if the defendant acted under diminished responsibility, the jury does not need to be satisfied of a causal link between the alcohol dependence syndrome and the death of the partner.
Option C is the correct answer, as confirmed by the case of R v Wood [2008] 2 Cr App R 507. In deciding whether the defendant’s mental responsibility for the killing was substantially impaired as a result of his alcohol dependence syndrome, the jury should focus exclusively on the effect of the alcohol consumed as a direct result of the defendant’s illness and ignore the effect of any alcohol consumed voluntarily.
Option A is wrong. Although the defendant must prove that he was suffering from an abnormality of mental functioning arising from a recognised medical condition, this does not mean he will ‘always’ succeed in the partial defence. The defendant must also satisfy the other requirements under s.52(1) of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 as incorporated into s.2(1) of the Homicide Act 1957.
Option B is wrong as s.2 of the Homicide Act 1957 does not require the abnormality of mental functioning to be the sole cause of the defendant’s acts – see R v Dietschmann [2003] 1 AC 1209.
Option D is wrong as the defendant must establish a ‘substantial impairment’ of his ability to do certain things; ‘any effect’ will not suffice.
Option E is wrong as a causal link must be established, in other words, the defendant must show that the homicide would not have happened without the alcohol dependence syndrome. This is because the statute confirms that the defendant’s abnormality of mental functioning must provide an explanation for his act of killing his partner.
Quick Q:
A man and a woman go to a festival. They listen to some of the bands and then decide to take some illegal drugs to liven up the evening. The pair begin to argue over who is the best singer at the festival and the dispute escalates. The woman pushes the man who responds by shoving her, shouting: “Why don’t you just shut up, you gobby cow!” The shove causes the woman to trip over her bag, stumble backwards and fall heavily to the floor. She bangs her head on the hard ground and lies still.
The man thinks she is faking to get attention and leaves her to buy a beer. The woman subsequently dies as a result of a bleed on the brain caused by her smacking her head on the ground.
Is the offence of unlawful act manslaughter likely to be established?
Yes, because the shove was an unlawful act which was dangerous and caused the death of the victim.
selected
Option B is correct because all the elements of unlawful act manslaughter have been satisfied. The unlawful act is the shove (battery). It is dangerous because the reasonable person would identify the risk of some harm (R v Church) in shoving somebody in this situation. Finally, the victim died as a result of the unlawful act (causation).
Option A is wrong. Intoxication is irrelevant because the unlawful act (the shove – a battery) can be carried out recklessly and so intoxication is no defence.
Option C is wrong as the man clearly caused the victim’s death. By shoving the woman, he caused her to hit her head on the hard ground leading to a bleed on the brain from which she died.
Option D is wrong because the mens rea of unlawful act manslaughter is the mens rea is of the unlawful act. Here it is to intend or be reckless as to the infliction of unlawful personal force, so it is irrelevant that the man did not intend any injury.
Option E is wrong because negligence is irrelevant to unlawful act manslaughter.
Unlawful Act Manslaughter
Example: the man had created a dangerous situation by discarding the cigarette and setting the rubbish on fire and having realised that he was under a duty to take reasonable steps to prevent the fire spreading. He should have raised the alarm and telephoned the fire brigade. R V Miller (1983) 1 All ER 978
For unlawful act manslaughter he must do an unlawful act which is dangerous, and which causes the victims death. In this case he fails to act but has a duty to act because he caused the dangerous situation, so it is therefore not and omission.
Aggravated Arson
Aggravated arson refers to arson offences that involve additional factors that significantly increase the seriousness of the crime.
Simple Arson
This offence is one of causing criminal damage by fire
Murder
The actus reus of murder: unlawful killing of a human being in the King’s peace.
The mens rea of murder: intention to kill (express malice) or intention to cause GBH (implied malice).
Requirements for unlawful act manslaughter again
Option E is the best answer. The requirements for unlawful act manslaughter are an unlawful act, with the actus reus and mens rea for that act (in this case intentional / reckless battery; malicious wound / inflict GBH) that is inherently dangerous on an objective test (repeated blows with a poker are clearly dangerous) and causes the victim’s death. Both factual and legal causation are satisfied, but for the woman’s actions, the man would not have died and the woman’s actions remain the operating and substantial cause of the man’s death. There is no requirement that the death is foreseen. There is no suggestion that the paramedics’ treatment broke the chain of causation here.
There is also an argument to suggest that the woman created a dangerous situation that she was under a duty to do something about – she should have at least checked for signs of life and/or called an ambulance when she discovered the man’s body meaning that gross negligence manslaughter could be considered, but Option E remains the best answer.
The defendant and the victim work on a farm and they are intending to shoot rabbits with a shotgun. They decide to practise their skills by shooting at tin cans which are lined up as targets against a barn, five metres away. The victim is standing in front of the barn, next to one of the cans. The defendant shoots at the victim because he hates him and wants to cause him a serious injury. However, he misses and hits the wall of the barn instead, splintering the wood (Incident 1). When the defendant did this he realised there was a risk that he may miss the victim and damage the building.
The defendant shoots at the victim again, but this time he intends only to frighten the victim. Having become aware of what a poor shot he is, he believes that he will miss the victim. However, the gun moves as he fires and the defendant hits the victim, killing him instantly (Incident 2).
Which of the following best describes the defendant’s likely criminal liability?
A-The defendant is guilty of criminal damage for Incident 1; and murder for Incident 2.
B-The defendant is guilty of attempted murder for Incident 1; and unlawful act manslaughter for Incident 2.
C-The defendant is guilty of criminal damage for Incident 1; and unlawful act manslaughter for Incident 2.
D-The defendant is not guilty of criminal damage as the malice cannot be transferred from the assault (Incident 1); but he is guilty of unlawful act manslaughter for Incident 2.
E-The defendant is guilty of attempted murder for Incident 1; and murder for Incident 2.
Option C is correct. The defendant is likely to be found guilty of criminal damage in Incident 1 on the basis of recklessness (he foresees the risk of causing criminal damage to the barn). He is guilty of unlawful act manslaughter for Incident 2. The unlawful act is the assault as he intends to frighten the victim (so has the actus reus and mens rea) and he causes the victim’s death.
Option A is wrong. Although the defendant is likely to be found guilty of criminal damage in Incident 1 (see above), he is not liable for murder for Incident 2 as he only intended to frighten the victim.
Option B is wrong because, for attempted murder, the defendant must intend to kill the victim and the evidence is that he only intended to cause him serious injury. It is correct that the defendant is liable for unlawful act manslaughter for Incident 2.
Option D is wrong because although the malice cannot be transferred from the intended assault to the criminal damage (Incident 1), he is guilty of criminal damage on the basis of recklessness. The second statement is correct as the defendant is guilty of unlawful act manslaughter in Incident 2.
Option E is wrong in relation to both statements.
A defendant is angry at the proposal by the local authority to build houses on local fields, as it will involve the destruction of the habitats of rare birds. He climbs up to the roof of the Town Hall and hangs a banner of protest onto the railings. As he is attaching it, the metal spike comes loose and falls towards the ground. A pedestrian who is passing is hit by the spike and killed by the impact. The defendant is horrified by what has happened as he thought the spike was secure.
Which of the following statements correctly describes the court’s approach when determining the defendant’s liability for unlawful act manslaughter?
A-Criminal damage is not an unlawful act for unlawful act manslaughter so the defendant cannot be liable.
B-The court will apply a subjective test in deciding whether the act was dangerous and the defendant thought the spike was secure.
C-For the act to be dangerous, it must carry a risk of death and this would be satisfied by the spike falling to the ground.
D-The defendant must have intended a physical assault which he did not on these facts.
E-The defendant is liable for causing the pedestrian’s death even though he was horrified by what happened.
The correct answer is option E because the usual rules of factual and legal causation apply. But for the spike falling the pedestrian would not have died as and when they did, and the defendant’s action was an operating and substantial cause of the death. The mens rea of the unlawful act is satisfied as he was reckless as to causing criminal damage.
Option A is wrong as criminal damage can be the unlawful act. Option B is wrong as the test for dangerousness is objective; whilst option C is wrong because to satisfy this test, the act must carry the risk of some harm – not death. Option D is wrong because, for unlawful act manslaughter, the mens rea must match the actus reus of the unlawful act, namely criminal damage on these facts. There is no requirement that the mens rea is of an assault, although it usually is.
KEY POINT BUT FOR
Unlawful act manslaughter again
Constructive manslaughter…
Constructive manslaughter is also referred to as unlawful act manslaughter. Constructive manslaughter is a form of involuntary manslaughter in that an unlawful killing has taken place where the defendant lacks the mens rea of murder. There are two types of involuntary manslaughter: constructive manslaughter exists where the defendant commits an unlawful dangerous act which results in death; where the defendant commits a lawful act which results in death this may amount to gross negligence manslaughter.
Can be broken down into three elements:
- There must be an unlawful act
- The unlawful act must be dangerous
- The unlawful dangerous act must cause death
The defendant is out with a group of friends at a pub. She sees a neighbour with whom she has fallen out, sitting on a stool at the bar and decides to confront her about the situation. An argument ensues, during which the defendant raises her hand to slap the neighbour across the face. The neighbour jerks backwards, overbalances and causes the stool to topple over. She falls onto the ground awkwardly and suffers a fractured skull from which she dies. The defendant is charged with unlawful act manslaughter.
Which statement correctly describes whether the defendant may be guilty of this offence?
A-Yes, because she was reckless as to causing death.
B-Yes, because the act of raising her hand was dangerous as the neighbour was sitting on a stool.
C-No, because the defendant did not touch the neighbour.
D-No, because the defendant did not intend to cause the neighbour’s death.
E-No, because the defendant’s act did not cause death as the neighbour died as a result of falling off the stool.
Option B is correct because raising a hand to slap someone who is sitting on a stool at a bar is objectively dangerous given the likelihood of injury if they fall off.
Options A and D are wrong as the prosecution do not need to establish that the defendant either intended or was reckless as to causing the death. The mens rea required is that of the unlawful act – in this instance, intention or recklessness as to causing the victim to apprehend unlawful personal force. Option C is wrong as any unlawful act will satisfy the actus reus, including simple assault as here. Option E is wrong because the rules of factual and legal causation apply. But for the defendant’s act, the neighbour would not have fallen off the stool and hit her head, and the defendant’s conduct was also an operating and substantial cause of her death.
