involuntary manslaughter Flashcards
what is the actus reus and mens rea of involuntary manslaughter?
actus reus - the same as murder, causing the death of a human being
mens rea - when the mens rea of murder can’t be satisfied, but a lower level of mens rea does exist
what is unlawful act manslaughter?
an offence requiring the death to have been caused by the defendants unlawful conduct, rather than deliberately
what is the actus reus of unlawful act manslaughter?
the act must be unlawful
the unlawful act must be dangerous
the unlawful and dangerous act must cause death
break down the actus reus of unlawful act manslaughter
-unlawful - the act must be criminal, but doesn’t have to be directed against any person, eg assisting in the administration of a drug
-dangerous - all sober and reasonable people would realise it would subject the victim to the risk of physical harm (not necessarily serious harm), its irrelevant if the defendant believed what they were doing wasn’t dangerous
-cause death - normal criminal rules of causation apply
what is the mens rea of unlawful act manslaughter?
only necessary to establish the mens rea of the unlawful act
key cases on unlawful act manslaughter
-R v Lowe - child died from neglect - ‘act’ (not omission)
-R v Church - unconscious, drowned, ‘dangerous’
-R v Carey - run away, ventricular fibrillation, ‘causation’
-R v Lamb - children, gun, mens rea
what is gross negligence manslaughter?
an offence requiring the death to have been caused by the defendants gross negligence, rather than deliberately
what is the first element of the test for GNMS?
-the defendant owed an existing duty of care to the victim
-requires foreseeability, proximity, fairness, justice and reasonableness
-duty can arise from a contract of employment
-duty can exist if the deceased and defendant were engaged in unlawful activity together
-the risk must be a serious and obvious risk of death
what is the second element of the test for GNMS?
-the defendant negligently breached the duty of care
-objective test based on what a reasonable person would do in the defendants position
-an unqualified person isn’t to be judged at a lower standard (lack of skill isn’t a defence if the conduct is negligent)
-however if the defendant has particular skills/knowledge of a danger their actions should be judged in light of those
what is the third element of the test for GNMS?
-at the time of the breach there was a serious and obvious risk of death
-much more than minimal or remote risk of death, risk of serious injury/illness doesn’t amount
-obvious means clear, present and unambiguous
what is the fourth element of the test for GNMS?
-it was reasonable foreseeable at the time of the breach of the duty that the breach gave rise to a serious and obvious risk of death
-objective test, doesn’t matter that the defendant didn’t appreciate the risk
-would have to have been obvious to a reasonable person
what is the fifth element of the test for GNMS?
-the breach of the duty caused or made a more than minimal contribution to the death of the victim
what is the sixth element of the test for GNMS?
-in the view of the jury, the circumstances of the breach were truly exceptionally bad and so reprehensible as to justify the conclusion that it amounted to gross negligence and required criminal sanction
key cases on gross negligence manslaughter
-R v Adomako - anaesthetist, disconnected oxygen pipe, the basis of the offence
-R v Misra and Srivastava - undiagnosed infection, breach must be gross
-R v Broughton - failed to get help after girlfriend took drugs, 6 rules (para 5)
