Involuntary Manslaughter 1B Flashcards
Which case set out the 6 elements for proving Gross Negligence Manslaughter?
R v Broughton
What are those 6 elements?
- D must owe V a duty of care
- D must breach that duty
- There must be a serious and obvious risk of death.
- The risk of death must be reasonably foreseeable.
- D’s breach must cause v’s death.
- The breach must be grossly negligent.
What is the definition of gross negligence manslaughter?
Unlawful killing without intent to kill or cause GBH.
What are the 2 types of involuntary manslaughter?
Unlawful Act Manslaughter
Gross Negligence Manslaughter
What are the 5 dutys of care and their cases?
- Contractual - R v Pittwood
- Relationship - R v Gibbins & Proctor
- Voluntarily assuming responsibility- R v Stone & Dobinson
- Public Office - R v Dytham
- Creating a dangerous situation - R v Miller.
What is the case that defines breach of duty?
Blyth v BWW
What is the case that talks about professionals being compared to professionals?
Bolam
What is the case that says age lowers the standard of care?
Mullin v Richards
What is the case that says inexperience is irrelevant?
Nettleship v Weston
What are the 4 risk factors and their cases?
- Size of risk - Bolton v Stone
- Practicability of precautions - Latimer v AEC
- Seriousness of potential harm - Paris v SBC
- Benefit of potential risk - Watt v HCC
Which case says there must be a serious and obvious risk of death?
R v Rose
What did R v Rose say about the concept of serious and obvious risk of death?
An obvious risk is a present risk which is clear and unambiguous, not one which might become apparent on further investigation.
What was the second thing that R v Rose said?
The serious and obvious risk of death must be reasonably foreseeable.
Who has to foresee the serious and obvious risk of death?
A reasonable man.
What do we use to find out if D’s breach caused the death of the victim?
Factual and legal causation.
How did Broughton say that we can decide if something is grossly negligent?
Ask the jury if the circumstances of the breach were truly exceptionally bad as to require criminal sanction.
What is the definition of Unlawful Act Manslaughter?
Dangerous and unlawful act that has caused death.
What is the only actus reus needed to prove UAM and what does it need to be?
D must commit an unlawful act and it must cause V’s death and must be dangerous.
What is the only mens rea needed to prove UAM?
D must have the MR for the unlawful act ONLY.
What can’t the unlawful act be?
An omission.
What does R v Stone and Dobinson say about Omissions?
A failure (omission) will be insufficient for an unlawful act manslaughter. There must be an act.
What does R v Franklin say the unlawful act must be?
Criminal! A civil wrong is not enough.
What does R v Lamb say?
D must have all the elements of the unlawful act - MR and AR.
What are the three unlawful acts that should always be used?
Assault, Battery or Criminal Damage.
What is the Mens rea of assault?
Direct intention or recklessness as to cause the victim to apprehend immediate unlawful force.
What is the mens rea of Battery?
Direct intention or recklessness as to apply unlawful force to another person.
What is the mens rea of criminal damage?
Direct intention or recklessness to cause damage to property.
What did DPP v Newbury and Jones say?
It is not necessary to prove that D foresaw any harm from his act, only that D has the MR for that unlawful act.
What other legal principle was used in Mitchell?
Transfered Malice (R v Latimer)
What must the unlawful act cause?
The death. Here we would use causation.
What was the legal principle in R v Cato?
The chain of causation is not broken because D administered the drug to V.
What was the legal principle in R v Kennedy?
The chain of causation was broken because V administered the drug to themselves.
What legal principle came from R v Dear?
Self neglect by V does not break the chain of causation.
What does R v Church say?
An act is dangerous if a sober and reasonable person would foresee a risk of physical harm.
What does R v Dawson say?
Emotional harm is not enough to prove an act is dangerous.
What does R v Watson say?
A reasonable person must realise a risk of harm for the act to be dangerous.
What does R v JM and SM say?
No need to foresee the specific harm, only that some harm may be caused.
What does R v Goodfellow say?
An unlawful act can be aimed at property as long as a sober and reasonable person could foresee a risk of harm to a person.
What does R v Farnon and Ellis say?
Low mental age does not make any difference to liability.
