Involuntary manslaughter

Question 1

What is unlawful act manslaughter also known as?

Answer 1

Constructive manslaughter.

Question 2

Is the defendant liable even if they did not realise that death or injury might occur?

Answer 2

Yes.

Question 3

Is a civil wrong enough?

Answer 3

No, it must be a criminal act.

Question 4

Give the facts of Franklin (1883)?

Answer 4

The defendant threw a large box into the sea which hit and killed a swimmer.

Question 5

Is an omission sufficient for unlawful act manslaughter?

Answer 5

No, there must be an act.

Question 6

Which case was it decided in that there must be an act?

Answer 6

Lowe (1973).

Question 7

On which test must the unlawful act be dangerous on?

Answer 7

An objective test.

Question 8

What was stated in the case of Church (1966)?

Answer 8

There only needs to be a risk of some harm.

Question 9

A risk of what type of harm is sufficient?

Answer 9

Physical.

Question 10

If a reasonable person would be aware of the victim’s frailty, will the defendant be liable?

Answer 10

Yes.

Question 11

Give the facts of Watson (1989).

Answer 11

The defendants threw a brick through a window of a house and entered, they beat up the 87-year-old occupier and left him. The man died of a heart attack 90 minutes later.

Question 12

Does the dangerous or unlawful act need to be aimed at the victim?

Answer 12

No.

Question 13

Give the facts of Larkin (1943).

Answer 13

D threatened another man with a cut-throat razor, a woman tried to intervene but because she was drunk she fell onto the open blade which killed her.

Question 14

Can the unlawful act be aimed at property?

Answer 14

Yes.

Question 15

Give the facts of Goodfellow (1986).

Answer 15

The defendant set fire to his council house so the authorities would move him to a bigger house. His wife, son and another woman died in the fire.

Question 16

Which area has the concept of intervening acts and causation caused problems in?

Answer 16

Where the defendant supplies the victim with drugs.

Question 17

In Cato (1976), the defendant injected the drugs, was the chain of causation broken?

Answer 17

No.

Question 18

In which case was it held that the chain of causation was broken because the defendant did not inject the victim?

Answer 18

Dalby (1982).

Question 19

What did the House of Lords say in Kennedy (2007)?

Answer 19

There is no unlawful act of the defendant in supplying the drugs.

Question 20

What did the House of Lords accept with regards to drug injection?

Answer 20

There could be situations where the defendant and victim were jointly involved in administration.

Question 21

Why is it difficult to see how this is possible?

Answer 21

In the case of Roberts (2003) the defendant held a tourniquet around the victim’s arm in order to assist injection, but the House of Lords stated that this was not an unlawful act and the chain of causation had been broken.

Question 22

How could a defendant be liable when supplying drugs?

Answer 22

They could be convicted of gross negligence manslaughter if there is a duty not to supply and prepare drugs.

Question 23

What must be proved with regards to mens rea?

Answer 23

The defendant must have the mens rea for the unlawful act.

Question 24

What does not have to be proved?

Answer 24

It is not necessary for the defendant to realise the act was unlawful or dangerous.

Question 25

When is gross negligence manslaughter committed?

Answer 25

When the defendant owes the victim a duty of care, which he breaches negligently causing death.

Question 26

How can gross negligence manslaughter be committed?

Answer 26

By an act or omission.

Question 27

What is the leading case on gross negligence manslaughter and what were the facts of it?

Answer 27

Adomako (1994) - the defendant was an anaesthetist, during the operation one of the tubes supplying oxygen to the patient became dislodged and the defendant failed to notice until the patient suffered a heart attack ad died six months later.

Question 28

What is the test for negligence?

Answer 28

Having regard to the risk of death involved, the conduct of the defendant was so bad in all the circumstances as to amount, in the jury's judgement, to criminal act or omission.

Question 29

What do the cases of Singh (1999) and Litchfield (1998) demonstrate?

Answer 29

A contractual duty of care.

Question 30

What happened in the case of Singh (1999)?

Answer 30

D was the landlord of the property in which a faulty gas fire caused the deaths of the tenants.

Question 31

What does the case of Khan and Khan (1998) mean?

Answer 31

The law can expand to create new situations where a duty of care exists.

Question 32

What is significant about the case of Wacker (2002) and what happened?

Answer 32

The defendant agreed to bring 60 illegal immigrants into England in the back of his lorry, but they all died. This shows how the law expanded to new situations after the case of Khan and Khan (1998).

Question 33

Where else can a duty of care exist?

Answer 33

Where the defendant creates a state of affairs which they know or ought reasonably to have known would threatened the life of the victim.

Question 34

What does the case of Evans (2009) demonstrate?

Answer 34

Where the defendant created a state of affairs that they knew or ought reasonably to have known was threatening to the life of the victim.

Question 35

When a duty of care has been established, what must next be proved?

Answer 35

The defendant breached the duty and that this breach caused death.

Question 36

What must not happen for the defendant to be convicted?

Answer 36

There must not be any intervening acts that break the chain of causation.

Question 37

What must the negligence be?

Answer 37

Gross.

Question 38

What is the test for if the negligence was gross?

Answer 38

Negligence is gross if it involves a consideration of the risk of death to the victim.

Question 39

Which case was the test for gross negligence resolved in?

Answer 39

Misra and another (2004).

Question 40

Give the facts of Misra and another (2004).

Answer 40

The victim had an operation on his knee, and the defendants who were doctors failed to treat the victim for an infection, and the victim died.

Question 41

Which case demonstrates reckless manslaughter?

Answer 41

Lidar (2000).

Question 42

What is reckless manslaughter?

Answer 42

Where he/she is aware of and consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that death will result from his/her conduct.

Question 43

Give three criticisms of the law on involuntary manslaughter.

Answer 43

1. The offence of unlawful act manslaughter covers a wide range of conduct. 2. Death may be an unexpected result, and if it is unexpected, the defendant will be labelled the same as someone who did expect death. 3. A defendant who did not realise the risk of death is still guilty as there is a subjective test.

Question 44

Suggest reform for the law on involuntary manslaughter.

Answer 44

Sub-division of unlawful act manslaughter, in order to lessen the range of acts that can commit one offence.