INVOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER

Question 1

What is unlawful act manslaughter? (1)

Answer 1

where the defendant cause a death through doing an unlawful act that is objectively dangerous with the necessary means rea for an unlawful act.

Question 2

what are the types of involuntary manslaughter? (2)

Answer 2

-unlawful act manslaughter
-gross negligence manslaughter

Question 3

what are the elements of unlawful act manslaughter? (4)

Answer 3

-the defendant has committed an unlawful act - crime
-the act must be objectively dangerous
-the act must cause the death
-the defendant must have required the mens rea for the unlawful act

Question 4

what is meant by unlawful act in terms of unlawful act manslaughter? (1)

Answer 4

the death must be caused by an unlawful act (a criminal offence), a civil wrong is not enough.

Question 5

what case can be used to show the validity of a civil wrong compared to a criminal offence? (1)

Answer 5

R v Franklin (1883)
R v Lamb (1967)

Question 6

what occurred in the case of R v Franklin and when was it? (2)

Answer 6

the defendant threw a box from a pier and it killed a swimmer, it was said that the civil wrong was not enough to create liability for unlawful act manslaughter. (1883)

Question 7

what occurred in the case of R v Lamb and when was it? (2)

Answer 7

Lamb and his friend were playing with a revolver that they knew was loaded, not thinking the chamber had a bullet in it he pulled the trigger killing his friend. The pointing of the gun at his friend was not assault as the friend did not fear it, so it was not held as unlawful act manslaughter. (1967)

Question 8

why can unlawful act manslaughter not occur with an omission? (1)

Answer 8

an omission is a failure to act, unlawful act manslaughter can only occur if the defendant completed an act (crime)

Question 9

what case shows that an omission cannot lead to a charge of unlawful act manslaughter? (1)

Answer 9

R v Lowe (1973)

Question 10

what occurred in the case of R v Lowe and when was it? (2)

Answer 10

court of appeal quashed conviction of unlawful act manslaughter when the defendant was convicted of wilfully neglecting there son. he could be convicted of gross negligence manslaughter though. (1973)

Question 11

what happens if the prosecution doubts which type of manslaughter applies? (1)

Answer 11

if the prosecution has doubts about which form of manslaughter applies they are likely to charge an accused with both forms of manslaughter, leaving it to the jury which form applies.

Question 12

what case covers the unlawful act of arson, in terms of unlawful act manslaughter? ((1)

Answer 12

R v Goodfellow (1986)

Question 13

what case covers criminal damage, in terms of unlawful act manslaughter? (1)

Answer 13

DPP v Newbury and Jones (1976)

Question 14

what case covers burglary, in terms of unlawful act manslaughter? (1)

Answer 14

R v Watson (1989)

Question 15

what case shows that the unlawful act must be dangerous in terms of unlawful act manslaughter? (1)

Answer 15

R v Church (1965)

Question 16

what occurred in the case of R v Church and when was it? (2)

Answer 16

it was held that the test was ‘such as all sober and reasonable people would inevitably recognise must subject the other person to, at least, the risk of some harm resulting therefrom, albeit not serious harm’ (1965)

Question 17

how dangerous must an act be to come under unlawful act manslaughter? (1)

Answer 17

the risk need only be of ‘some harm’ the harm need not be serious

Question 18

In what report did the law commission make their opinion known about unlawful act manslaughter? (1)

Answer 18

1996 in the ‘legislating the criminal code; involuntary manslaughter’

Question 19

what did the law commission say in this report in terms of unlawful act manslaughter? (2)

Answer 19

” it…is appropriate to convict a defendant for an offence of homicide where the most that can be said is that he or she ought to have realised that there was the risk of some, albeit it not serious, harm to another resulting from his or her commission of an unlawful act”

Question 20

what case shows the need for an unlawful act and the need of an objective viewpoint, in terms of unlawful act manslaughter? (1)

Answer 20

R v Larkin (1943)

Question 21

what occurred in the case of R v Larkin and when was it? (2)

Answer 21

defendant threatened another man with an open blade, a women fell on it and died. Defendants conviction was upheld on appeal, the act of threatening the man with the blade was assault and it was dangerous as it was likely to injure someone. (1943)

Question 22

what case showed that the intended victim need not be the actual victim, in terms of unlawful act manslaughter? (1)

Answer 22

R v Mitchell (1983)

Question 23

what occurred in the case of R v Mitchell and when was it? (2)

Answer 23

the defendant pushed his way into a queue and punched a man who told him off for this. the man fell into an elderly women who fell over and died. the crime was battery which was likely to cause harm. (1983)

Question 24

what is meant by some harm, in terms of unlawful act manslaughter? (1)

Answer 24

it is not necessary for the sober and reasonable person to foresee the paritcular type of harm the victim suffers, it is enough that the sober and reasonable person would foresee some harm.

Question 25

what case shows that the defendant need not foresee the harm that occurs? (1)

Answer 25

R v J M and S M (2012)

Question 26

what occurred in the case of R v J M and S M and when was it? (2)

Answer 26

The defendants left and returned to a club where they got into a fight with the doormen one of which fell down and died. The rupture that occurred in the mans arteries that caused his death was unlikely to occur, the judge stated that the victim died as a result of the physical activity and that any reasonable person would see the risk of their actions. (2012)

Question 27

what is meant by act against property in terms of unlawful act manslaughter? (1)

Answer 27

the unlawful act does not have to be aimed at a person, it can be aimed at a property provided it is 'such that all sober and reasonable people would inevitably recognise must subject another person to, at least, the risk of some harm'

Question 28

what case shows crimes against property apply for unlawful act manslaughter? (1)

Answer 28

R v Goodfellow (1986)

Question 29

what occurred in the case of R v Goodfellow and when was it? (2)

Answer 29

defendant set fire to his flat so that the council would rehome his family, the fire killed his family and his neighbour, he was convicted of manslaughter, on appeal in which the court of appeal held that the conviction had all of the elements of manslaughter. (1986)

Question 30

what is meant by physical harm in terms of unlawful act manslaughter? (1)

Answer 30

the 'risk of harm' applies to physical harm, shock or fear is not enough.

Question 31

what case shows that fear and shock cannot apply to unlawful act manslaughter? (1)

Answer 31

R v Dawson (1985)

Question 32

what occurred in the case of R v Dawson and when was it? (2)

Answer 32

defendants attempted to rob a gas station the attendant managed to hit the alarm but died of a heart attack, the defendants were charged with unlawful act manslaughter. (1985)

Question 33

what case stated that the frailty of a victims condition can make them guilty of unlawful act manslaughter? (1)

Answer 33

R v Watson (1989)

Question 34

what occurred in the case of R v Watson and when was it? (2)

Answer 34

defendants threw a brick through an old mans window, they physically abused him before leaving, he had a heart attack shortly after. the court of appeal quashed conviction but did say that burglary could be dangerous. (1989)

Question 35

what case shows that a burglary can be dangerous if the circumstances of the offence make it so? (1)

Answer 35

R v Bristow, Dunn and Delay (2013)

Question 36

what occurred in the case of R v Bristow, Dunn and Delay and when was it? (2)

Answer 36

defendants planned to rob a workshop, there was a drive in and out and the victim was found dead near the workshop, the evidence showed he had been hit by one of the trucks. The defendants were convicted of manslaughter. (2013)

Question 37

what is meant by causing the death of the victim in terms of unlawful act manslaughter? (1)

Answer 37

if an intervening act breaks the chain of causation then the defendant cannot be liable for their death

Question 38

what case shows that a defendant cannot be liable for the victims act if the chain of causation is broken in terms of unlawful act manslaughter? (1)

Answer 38

R v Williams and Davis (1992)

Question 39

what occurred in the case of R v Williams and Davis and when was it? (2)

Answer 39

the defendants picked up a hitchhiker who jumped out of the car hit his head and died, prosecution accused them of being in the process of robbing him when this happened and there actions amounted to this unlawful act. The victim jumping out of the car lead to a Novus actus Interveniens which broke the chain of causation. (1992)

Question 40

what is meant by Novus actus interveniens? (1)

Answer 40

an intervening act which breaks the chain of causation

Question 41

what case shows that self injection does not lead to unlawful act manslaughter? (1)

Answer 41

R v Kennedy (2007)

Question 42

what occurred in the case of R v Kennedy and when was it? (2)

Answer 42

the house of lords held that there was no unlawful act by the defendant under s23 if the defendant filled a syringe and handed it to the victim who then self-injected, the act of self-injecting was a voluntary intervening act by the victim was broke the chain of causation. (2007)

Question 43

what is the mens rea is needed for unlawful act manslaughter? (1)

Answer 43

it must be proved that the defendant had the mens rea for the unlawful act, the crime. but it is not necessary for the defendant to realise that the act is unlawful or dangerous.

Question 44

what case shows what the mens rea is for unlawful act manslaughter? (1)

Answer 44

DPP v Newbury and Jones (1976)

Question 45

what occurred in the case of DPP v Newbury and Jones and when was it? (2)

Answer 45

defendants pushed a stone from a railway track which hit a train and killed a guard, initially they were convicted and COA upheld conviction but the case was referred back and the house of lords held that it was not necessary to prove that the defendants foresaw the consequences. (1976)

Question 46

what is meant by gross negligence manslaughter? (1)

Answer 46

a form of involuntary manslaughter committed where the defendant is grossly negligent in the breach of a duty of care towards the victim, which results in the victims death.

Question 47

what case led to the definition of gross negligent manslaughter? (1)

Answer 47

R v Adomako (1994)

Question 48

what occurred in the case of R v Adomako and when was it? (2)

Answer 48

Defendant was a professional technician but failed to notice that an oxygen tube had become disconnected during surgery, the patient had a heart attack and died, other doctors said that any experienced technician would have noticed, was convicted because all needed evidence was there. (1994)

Question 49

in what case do ordinary principles of negligence in civil law stem from? (1)

Answer 49

Caparo v Dickman (1990)

Question 50

what occurred in the case of Caparo v Dickman and when was it? (2)

Answer 50

a death which resulted from an obvious act which could or had a risk of death at the time. (1990)

Question 51

what case can be used for examples of a duty of care? (6)

Answer 51

- R v Singh (1999) - R v Litchfield (1997) - R v Khan and Khan (1998) - R v Finlay (2001) - R v Edwards (2001) - R v Wacker (2002)

Question 52

what occurred in the case of R v Singh and when was it? (2)

Answer 52

Defendant was landlord when a faulty gas pipe caused death to tenants, defendant had the duty to own and manage property safety. (1999)

Question 53

what occurred in the case of R v Litchfield and when was it? (2)

Answer 53

Defendant owned a sailing ship and knew that the engines might fail due to contamination with fuel, the ship ran onto rocks killing three of his crew members. (1997)

Question 54

what occurred in the case of R v Khan and Khan and when was it? (2)

Answer 54

defendants supplied drugs to victim where she later overdosed and died, conviction was quashed but the house of lords held that it could extend into this area. (1998)

Question 55

what occurred in the case of R v Finlay and when was it? (2)

Answer 55

Scoutmaster took scouts on a hike where one of them fell and died, it was decided by jury that this omission was not so bad as to be criminal. (2001)

Question 56

what occurred in the case of R v Edwards and when was it? (2)

Answer 56

parents to a child who they let play on the railway got hit by a train and died, the parents owed a duty to the child. (2001)

Question 57

what occurred in the case of R v Wacker and when was it? (2)

Answer 57

Defendant agreed to ship 60 immigrants into England the only way for them to breathe was through a vent which he closed on the ferry over which took longer than expected. 58 of the immigrants died, court held that the defendant knew the survival of the immigrants depended on his own actions so he did owe a duty. (2002)

Question 58

where did the courts state that a duty could arise from the case of R v Miller? (1)

Answer 58

a duty could now arise if the defendant was aware, or ought to have been aware, that the victims life was at risk and the following rules apply.

Question 59

what rules did the court outline from the case of R v Miller? (4)

Answer 59

1 - the defendant contributed to supply 2 - the defendant was in a relationship such as parent/child 3 - the defendant and victim were engaged in a dangerous joint enterprise which went wrong 4 - the defendant voluntarily assumed a duty of care

Question 60

what is meant by a breach of duty causing death in terms of gross negligence manslaughter? (1)

Answer 60

once a duty of care has been shown to exist it must be proved that the defendant was in breach of that duty of care and that this breach caused the death of the victim.

Question 61

who must determine whether or not the defendant was a cause of the victims death? (1)

Answer 61

whether there is a breach of duty is a factual matter for the jury to decide. Did the defendant negligently do or fail to do something?

Question 62

in what case did the courts describe the means of 'gross' manslaughter? (1)

Answer 62

R v Bateman (1925)

Question 63

what occurred in the case of R v Bateman and when was it? (2)

Answer 63

doctor helped give birth in which he discovered part of the uterus came away, he didn’t send the women to the hospital for 5 days, conviction of manslaughter was quashed as he performed all his duties that a normal doctor would have done. (1925)

Question 64

in what case did the courts decide what risk of death in terms of gross negligence manslaughter meant? (1)

Answer 64

R v Misra and Srivastava (2004)

Question 65

what occurred in the case of R v Misra and Srivastava and when was it? (2)

Answer 65

defendants failed to discover infection of a poster surgery pateient which he later died of. (2004)

Question 66

what is the mens rea for gross negligence manslaughter? (1)

Answer 66

the defendant will be judged by their behaviour rather than their state of mind, there must be an obvious risk of death but will be judged objectively.

Question 67

what are the elements of gross negligence manslaughter? (4)

Answer 67

-the existence of a duty of care by the defendant towards the victim -a breach of duty which causes the death -gross negligence which the jury considers to be criminal -the mens rea for gross negligence