Involuntary Manslaughter Flashcards
What is involuntary manslaughter?
It is a type of homicide where the defendant lacks the intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm, but their actions lead to someone’s death.
What are the two main types of involuntary manslaughter?
Unlawful act manslaughter (UAM) and gross negligence manslaughter.
What is unlawful act manslaughter also known as?
Constructive manslaughter.
What are the essential elements of unlawful act manslaughter?
A positive act, an unlawful act, a dangerous act, the required mens rea, and causation leading to death.
Is intent to kill required for unlawful act manslaughter?
No, intent to kill or cause serious harm is not required.
What is required regarding the act in unlawful act manslaughter?
There must be a positive act; an omission is not sufficient.
Can an omission qualify as a positive act for UAM?
No, unlawful act manslaughter requires a positive act.
Why is an omission insufficient for unlawful act manslaughter?
Because UAM requires an active conduct that is unlawful and dangerous.
Give an example of a positive act leading to UAM.
Physically assaulting someone, leading to their death.
What case demonstrates that an omission is insufficient for UAM?
There is no specific case because UAM does not apply to omissions.
What is required regarding the nature of the act in UAM?
The act must be unlawful.
What types of crimes typically constitute an unlawful act in UAM?
Assault, battery, ABH, GBH, burglary, robbery, and criminal damage.
Does the prosecution need to prove intent to kill in UAM?
No, they only need to prove intent for the underlying unlawful act.
What did R v Ball illustrate about the unlawful act requirement?
It demonstrated that a mistaken belief does not make an act lawful if it is objectively dangerous.
Why was the conviction upheld in DPP v Newbury despite the defendants’ age?
Because foresight of harm is not required; the act itself was dangerous and unlawful.
What must the defendant have regarding mens rea in UAM?
The defendant must have the mens rea for the underlying criminal act.
Do defendants need to foresee death or serious harm in UAM?
No, they only need to have the intent for the unlawful act.
How does R v Lamb illustrate the lack of mens rea?
The defendants lacked intent for assault as both thought the gun would not fire, so there was no unlawful act.
Is it necessary for the defendant to foresee harm resulting from their act?
No, as established in DPP v Newbury; there is no requirement to foresee harm.
What case established that foresight of harm is not necessary in UAM?
DPP v Newbury.
What makes an act ‘dangerous’ in UAM?
An act is dangerous if a sober and reasonable person would recognize it as carrying a risk of physical harm.
What case established the ‘dangerous act’ test?
R v Church.
How did R v Church define a dangerous act?
An act that a sober and reasonable person would recognize as risking some harm.
What does R v Larkin illustrate about dangerous acts?
Waving a cut-throat razor was deemed dangerous as it posed an obvious risk of physical harm.