involuntary manslaughter

Question 1

what are the different types of manslaughter?

Answer 1

• Unlawful Act Manslaughter (constructive manslaughter)
• Gross Negligence Manslaughter (GNM)

Question 2

what is the maximum sentence for involuntary manslaughter?

Answer 2

discretionary life imprisonment

Question 3

what is the actus reus of unlawful act manslaughter?

Answer 3

D does a dangerous unlawful act which causes death

Question 5

what are the 4 key parts of unlawful act manslaughter?

Answer 5

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

Question 6

lamb (1967)

Answer 6

• 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)

Question 7

franklin (1883)

Answer 7

• 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)

Question 8

lowe (1973)

Answer 8

• failed to take child to hospital
• held omission is insufficient, must be an act

unlawful act (ar)

Question 9

church (1966)

Answer 9

objective test – would the reasonable and sober person realise the risk of some harm?

dangerous act (ar)

Question 10

mitchell (1983)

Answer 10

• 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

Question 11

larkin (1943)

Answer 11

• razor blade case
• The act itself does not need to be aimed against the person - is still dangerous in general

Question 12

goodfellow (1986)

Answer 12

the act can be against property and still classed as dangerous

Question 13

UAM - physical harm

dangerous (ar)

Answer 13

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

Question 14

dawson (1985)

Answer 14

heart attack – reasonable man not aware of condition

dangerous (ar)

Question 15

watson (1989)

Answer 15

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

Question 16

invol manslaughter - causation

Answer 16

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.

Question 17

mens rea for unlawful act manslaughter

Answer 17

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

Question 18

Newbury and Jones (1977)

Answer 18

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

Question 19

Gross Negligence Manslaughter

Answer 19

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)

Question 20

what are the 5 Key Parts to GNM?

Answer 20

• 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

Question 21

can GNM be committed by an omission?

Answer 21

yes

UAM can’t

Question 22

Adomako (1995)

Answer 22

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.

Question 23

examples of duties of care

Answer 23

• 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

Question 24

Wacker (2003)

Answer 24

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

Question 25

Andrews v DPP (1937)

Answer 25

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

Question 26

Khan and Khan (1998)

Answer 26

It was said in obiter in these cases that duty situations could be extended to other areas

GNM - duty of care

Question 27

GNM - causation

Answer 27

• 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?

Question 28

GNM - grossly negligent

Answer 28

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”

Question 29

GNM - risk of death

Answer 29

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