involuntary manslaughter Flashcards
what are the different types of manslaughter?
- Unlawful Act Manslaughter (constructive manslaughter)
- Gross Negligence Manslaughter (GNM)
what is the maximum sentence for involuntary manslaughter?
discretionary life imprisonment
what is the actus reus of unlawful act manslaughter?
D does a dangerous unlawful act which causes death
what are the 4 key parts of unlawful act manslaughter?
Unlawful act manslaughter (UAM) is defined in common law as an unlawful dangerous act that causes death and the defendant had the mens rea for the unlawful act.
unlawful, dangerous, causation, D has MR for unlawful act
lamb (1967)
- friends messing around with revolver, D pointed the gun at his friend and fired, killing him.
- held that there must be an unlawful criminal act
unlawful act (ar)
franklin (1883)
- d threw a box into the sea off brighton pier. The box struck a swimmer who died.
- held civil wrong insufficient, must be a criminal offence
unlawful act (ar)
lowe (1973)
- failed to take child to hospital
- held omission is insufficient, must be an act
unlawful act (ar)
church (1966)
objective test – would the reasonable and sober person realise the risk of some harm?
dangerous act (ar)
mitchell (1983)
- hit man in queue, fell into 89 year old woman who dies.
- The act itself does not need to be aimed against the person - is still dangerous in general
larkin (1943)
- razor blade case
- The act itself does not need to be aimed against the person - is still dangerous in general
goodfellow (1986)
the act can be against property and still classed as dangerous
UAM - physical harm
dangerous (ar)
To be classed as ‘dangerous’ it must be the risk of some “physical” harm as seen in R v Dawson where the reasonable man would not have been aware of the victim’s heart condition however, if the frailty is obvious as in R v Watson, the act could still be considered dangerous
Something which causes fear and apprehension is not sufficient
dawson (1985)
heart attack – reasonable man not aware of condition
dangerous (ar)
watson (1989)
However, where a reasonable person would be aware of the victim’s frailty and the risk of physical harm to him, the act could still be considered dangerous
R v Watson (1989) - elderly man died of a heart attack ninety minutes after being physically abused in an attempted burglary of his home.
dangerous (ar) - if the frailty is obvious
invol manslaughter - causation
Normal rules apply –
1) factual causation is proven using the But for test (Pagett, White)
2) legal causation is established using the Kimsey rule (R v Kimsey) ‘‘more than a slight or trifling link between d’s actions and v’s death
3) The court will then consider any intervening acts which could break the
chain of causation
- R v Jordan whereby the act of a third party (the doctor) broke the chain of causation
- turning off a life support machine does not break the chain of
-causation – Malcherek - R v Blaue illustrates the thin skull rule and the defendant must take the victim as they find them.
mens rea for unlawful act manslaughter
D must have the mens rea for the unlawful act as seen in R v Newbury and Jones where the defendants had the intention to cause criminal damage and therefore were guilty of UAM
Newbury and Jones (1977)
paving stone onto track killed train guard – didn’t matter didn’t foresee resulting harm - defendants had the intention to cause criminal damage and therefore were guilty of UAM
mr for manslaughter
Gross Negligence Manslaughter
Defined in common law in the cases of R v Adomako and R v Misra & Another
The defendant (D) must owe the victim (V) a duty of care, breach that duty of care, cause the death, be grossly negligent and there must be a risk of death from D’s actions.
- Duty of care (AR)
- Breach duty (AR)
- Causation (AR)
- Grossly Negligent (MR)
- Risk of death added by Misra and another (2004) (AR)
what are the 5 Key Parts to GNM?
- Defendant owes duty of care to the victim
- Breaches duty in a very negligent way
- Causes death of the victim
- Risk of death to the victim (added by misra and another)
- Jury considers it to be so bad that it should be criminal
can GNM be committed by an omission?
yes
UAM can’t
Adomako (1995)
D was an anaesthetist in an eye operation. The breathing tubes fell off the machine and the defendant did not notice. The victim died (six months later) from the injuries. Doctors said the failure to react was “abysmal”. D convicted and this was upheld by the HOL.
examples of duties of care
- Statutory duties – drivers-pedestrians
- Contractual duties – doctors (Adomako)/car workers/teachers/police officers/lifeguards
- Relationships – parent-child, spouse-spouse
- Voluntary duty – Stone and Dobinson
- Official duty – Police officers
- Set in motion a chain of events – Miller
GNM - duty of care
Wacker (2003)
D agreed to bring 60 illegal immigrants to England. A small vent allowed air into the lorry and it was agreed that this would have to be closed for some time to avoid detection. It was closed before boarding and the ferry took an hour longer to arrive. Customs found 58 had died.
Court of Appeal upheld the conviction and said it was a duty.
GNM - duty of care
Andrews v DPP (1937)
killed victim whilst driving, careless so manslaughter
Duties of care can arise in many situation - can also be seen in the driver-pedestrian relationship in Andrews v DPP
GNM - duty of care
Khan and Khan (1998)
It was said in obiter in these cases that duty situations could be extended to other areas
GNM - duty of care
GNM - causation
- But for test – Pagett
- Kimsey rule – is there more than a slight or trifling link between D’s acts and the death?
- Are there any intervening acts?
GNM - grossly negligent
D must be found to have been grossly negligent (mens rea) and this can be seen in R v Bateman where the doctor was found to have only been negligent and therefore could not be guilty of GNM.
- Lord Mackay: jury had to decide if D’s conduct “was such that it should be judged criminal”
GNM - risk of death
added by Misra and another (2004)
V had an operation on his knee. The two defendants failed to spot and treat an infection. V died. The defendants were convicted but appealed.
Upheld convictions and said law was certain – there MUST be a risk of death to convict
