involuntary manslaughter

Question 1

briefly explain involuntary manslaughter

Answer 1

occurs when D causes the death of the victim but doesn’t mean to and therefore doesn’t satisfy the MR of murder

Question 2

what are the 2 types of involuntary manslaughter?

Answer 2

• unlawful act manslaughter
• gross negligence mansalughter (breach of duty)

Question 3

what is unlawful act manslaughter?
-involuntary mansalughter

Answer 3

where D lacks the MR of murder but kills the victim in the course of committing an unlawful and objectively dangerous criminal act.

Question 4

what are the 4 elements of unlawful act manslaughter?
-involuntary manslaughter

Answer 4

• unlawful positive act by D, not an omission (can include arson, burglary or criminal damage)
• act is dangerous on an objective basis
• act causes the death (factual and legal causation)
• D had intention/MR for the unlawful act (don’t need to realise it will cause death)

Question 5

what are the 3 cases for arson, burglary, criminal damage part of unlawful act mansalughter?
-involuntary manslaughter

Answer 5

arson: R v Goodfellow- set fire to property and people died inside as a result (indirect intention)
Criminal damage: DPP v Newbury & Jones
Burglary: R v Watson

Question 6

give R v Church (1966) definition of a dangerous act
-involuntary unlawful act manslaughter

Answer 6

“such as all sober and reasonable people would inevitably recognise must subject the V to, at least, some harm resulting thereform albeit not serious harm”

Question 7

give the 4 parts of describing volunatary manslaughter

Answer 7

• D admits that he killed V but claims a special defence
• diminshed responsibility
• loss of control (provocation came into force in 2012)
• if successful judge reduces it to manslaughter

Question 8

give the AO1 of unlawful act mansalughter

Answer 8

• there must be an unlawful act (R v Lamb), an omission will not suffice (R v Lowe)
• the act can be aimed at property (R v Goodfellow) and doesn’t need to be aimed at the V (R v Mitchell)
• the act must be objectively dangerous. Definition contained in case of R v Church: “all sober and resonable people would inevitably recognise must subject the other person (v) to, at least, some harm resulting thereform albeit not serious harm”
• D does not need to forsee the actual harm (R v JM & SM)
• the unlawful act must cause the death so normal rules of causation apply: Factual causation = “but for” actions of D the V wouldn’t have died (R v White), Legal causation = no intervening acts in the chain of causation (R v Kennedy) and more than a minimal cause (R v Smith)
• the D needs to have the mens rea for the unlawful act. He doesn’t need to realise that it is unlawful or dangerous (R v Newbury & Jones)

Question 9

gross negligence mansalughter

Answer 9

occurs when the D owes the victim a duty of care which he breaches in a very negligent way, causing the death of the victim.

Question 10

what are the 4 elements of gross negligence manslaughter (GNM) confirmed in the leading case of R v Adomako (1994)

Answer 10

1. the existence of a duty of care towards the victim
2. a breach of the duty of care towards the V (act or omission)
3. the breach causes death (normal rules of causation: factual and legal)
4. the negligence is so serious as to be gross negligence (test: what you do is risking death in some way)

Question 11

what is element one of GNM in R v Adomako described as in donoghue v Stevnson (1932)

Answer 11

“you must take reasonable care to avoid acts and omissions which you can reasonably forsee would be likely to injure your neighbour. your neighbour is defined as persons who are so closely affected by my act that I ought to have them in my contemplation”

Question 12

what are the 6 elements from R v Broughton (2020) prosecution must identify for gross negligence mansalughter that was restated from the Adomako test
(AO1)

Answer 12

1) D owed a duty of care to V
2) D negligently brached that duty
3) at time of breach there was a serious (more than minimal) and obvious risk of death (not sickness/injury) - causation rules apply
4) reasonably forseeable at the time that breach of duty gave rise to a serious and obvious risk of death
5) the breach of duty caused or made a significant contribution to the death
6) jury believe the cicrumstances of the breach to be truly exceptionally bad so has to amout to GNM and requires a criminal sanction