involuntary manslaughter Flashcards
what does involuntary manslaughter include
It includes a variety of homicides that are in themselves unlawful(at common law) but committed without the mens rea for murder
what are the elements of invol Manslaughter
an unlawful act
intentionally performed
in circumstances rendering it dangerous
causing death
where are the elements defined
This is defined by lord hope in A-G’s reference~No 3 of 1994 til 1998 AC 830
the unlawful act can be what
be any criminal offence that involved an act(must be positive) but an omission will not do
facts of R v Lowe 1973
the appellant’s child died from neglect. The trial judge directed the jury that if they found guilty of the offence of neglect they also must find him guilty for manslaughter on the grounds that neglect was an unlawful act.the jury convicted him of manslaughter and neglect.
held for R v Lowe 1973
appeal was allowed. For constructive manslaughter there must be an unlawful ‘act’
the unlawful act needs to be what
need not be directed at the victim
case link to act need not be direct
r v mitchell
what happen in the case R v Mitchell
where he pushed into a queue and an old man told him there is a queue going back and then D pushed the old man then the old man fell on an old lady who then fell and broke her leg and then died.
what case established the test for dangerousness
r v Church 1967
what happen in R v Church 1967
someone mocked the appellant’s ability to satisfy her sexually and slapped his face.then the fight developed into where the appellant knocked her unconscious.he tried to wake up and then believed she had died and threw her body into a river but medical evidence reveals the cause of death was her drowning so therefor had been alive when throw into the river.
held for R v Church 1967
the trial judge made several errors in his direction to the jury, in the event they convicted him of manslaughter rather than murder.the appellant appealed on the grounds of misdirection.they were convicted of manslaughter instead murder
what is the objective test
ordinary reasonable person would see a risk of some harm.
what is in order for a unlawful act to be dangerous
courts have held that D doesn’t have to be prove to have foreseen any harm , as long as the reasonable man would have foreseen some harm
need not be the accused of what
who necessarily foresaw the harm, but any ‘sober and reasonable’ person
the risk may be only what
‘some harm’, not necessarily serious harm
what happen in DPP v newbury & Jones 1976
2 teenage boys pushed a piece of paving stone from a bridge onto a railway line where there was an approaching train.the stone smashed through the window of the train which is criminal damage, killing a guard.
what was commit in DPP v Newbury & jones(1976)
Committed criminal damage does not normally result in the harm to a person so the question was whether or not the D’s had to foresee harm from this act.
held for DPP v Newbury & jones(1976)
HOL held that there was no requirement for D to foresee “some harm”, in this case D doesn’t have to foresee that the unlawful act may cause death or injury.
what is the meaning of harm
the harm intended must be actual physical harm.
it not enough to frighten someone
case link to meaning of harm
Dawson 1985
what happen in dawson 1985
the CA also had to decide if the reasonable man would have seen the risk of some physical harm from their unlawful act to the victim.
what did CA decide
decided the reasonable has the same knowledge of the D’s and as the D’s hee did not know about the heart condition neither would the reasonable man
what is intentional performed
The accused state of mind is relevant only to establish.
-the act was committed intentionally(not involuntary)
-and that it was an unlawful act
