Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Law A2 > Involuntary Manslaughter > Flashcards

Involuntary Manslaughter Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
Civil Procedure 1L flashcards MBE flashcards MPRE flashcards
1
Q

What three types of Involuntary Manslaughter are there?

A

Unlawful Act
Gross Negligence
Subjective Recklessness

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

What three elements are there to unlawful act manslaughter?

A
  1. An unlawful act
  2. unlawful act must be dangerous
  3. Unlawful act must have caused death
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

What 5 cases are associated with 1. Unlawful Act?

A 
Franklin (1883)
Larkin (1943)
R v Lamb (1967)
R v Simon Slingsby (1995)
R v Lowe (1973)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

What was established in Franklin (1883)?

A

Unlawful act cannot be tort, must be criminal itself not just a crime because it was something done negligently.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

What happened in Larkin (1943)?

A

D waved razor at man to frighten him. Man’s drunken mistress fell against it and slit her throat.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

What was Larkin (1943) convicted of and why?

A

Manslaughter - as there was an unlawful act (intentionally assaulting man).

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

What happened in R v Lamb (1967)?

A

D and friend were messing around with revolver and D accidently shot V. V died.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

What was the legal principle in R v Lamb (1967)?

A

Unlawful act would have been assault, however there was no mens rea as D and V both thought it was a joke.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

What happened in R v Slingsby (1995)?

A

D met women in night-club, had sex, caused internal injury and she died of septicaemia.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

What was the legal principle in R v Slingsby (1995)?

A

CoA said not guilty as there was no offence, he also had no mens rea for any offence.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

What happened in R v Lowe (1973)?

A

D committed offence of neglecting child.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

What is the legal principle in R v Lowe (1973)?

A

An omission is not enough for this type of manslaughter, death could not lead to conviction as there was no positive act.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

What are the five cases associated with 2. Unlawful act must be dangerous?

A 
Church (1966)
DPP v Newbury and Jones (1977)
R v Dawson (1985)
R v Watson (1989)
Carey (2006)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

What happened in Church (1966)?

A

D and women had sex in van, didn’t satisfy her sexually, hit her, thought he’d killed her, threw body in river where she died of drowning.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

What is the legal principle in Church (1966)?

A

CoA ruled ‘‘An act is dangerous if it was such as all sober and reasonable people would inevitably recognise must subject the person to at least the risk of some harm….albeit not serious harm’’. Purely objective test.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

What happened in DPP v Newbury and Jones (1977)?

A

2 D’s, 15 y/o boys threw concrete block off railway bridge hitting train passing underneath, killed a guard.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

What is the legal principle in DPP v Newbury and Jones (1977)?

A

Defence argued age meant they didn’t appreciate the act was dangerous, CoA upheld convictions. Act would have been obviously dangerous to a reasonable bystander, no characteristics could be taken into account.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

What happened in R v Dawson (1985)?

A

60 y/o worked in petrol station, D’s attempted an armed robbery. V pressed alarm, D’s ran off. Unknown to D’s, V had serious heart attack and died.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

What is the legal principle in R v Dawson (1985)?

A

Conviction quashed as D’s couldn’t known that victim has weakness and reasonable bystander wouldn’t have known.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

What happened in R v Watson (1989)?

A

D’s committed burglary in house of 87 y/o, had heart attack soon after and died.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

What is the legal principle in R v Watson (1989)?

A

Unlawful act became dangerous as soon as the man’s frailty was obvious to reasonable person. CoA quashed conviction because they couldn’t prove burglary caused heart attack.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

What happened in Carey (2006)?

A

Two groups of girls got into argument. Victims hair was pulled and punched in face. Ran away and collapsed after 100m, died of undiagnosed heart complaint.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

What is the legal principle of Carey (2006)?

A

Punch had not caused death, unlawful act was not dangerous as a reasonable bystander would not have expected a healthy girl to die under those circumstances.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

What five cases are associated with 3. Unlawful act must gave caused death?

A 
R v Johnstone (2007)
Cato (1976)
Kennedy (No2) (2007)
Mitchell (1983)
Goodfellow (1986)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

What happened in R v Johnstone (2007)?

A

V playing cricket with son, 20 youths approached, shouted abuse and spat at him, Threw stones and sticks, at least one hit him on the head. Died of heart attack after, medical evidence showed attack was caused by rush of adrenaline.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

What is the legal principle in R v Johnstone (2007)?

A

Youths caused heart attack BUT unsure if shouting + spitting - not dangerous - trigger heart attack OR dangerous act of throwing stones did.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

What happened in Cato (1976)?

A

Drug dealer injected victim with heroin, V died.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

What is the legal principle in Cato (1976)?

A

Unlawful act was administering noxious substance, upheld manslaughter conviction.

29
Q

What happened in Kennedy (No2) (2007)?

A

Drug dealer gave heroin filled syringe to victim who self injected, died from overdose.

30
Q

What was the legal principle in Kennedy (No2) (2007)?

A

Quashed manslaughter conviction, ruled drug dealer is not responsible for user’s death is they’re a fully informed, responsible adult who voluntarily self-injects.

31
Q

What happened in Mitchell (1983)?

A

D argued with man in post office queue, pushed him, fell against 89 y/o knocking her over, broke a leg, subsequently died from thrombosis caused by broken leg.

32
Q

What was the legal principle in Mitchell (1983)?

A

CoA said it was irrelevant that D’s action was not aimed at victim. Convicted.

33
Q

What happened in Goodfellow (1986)?

A

D wanted to move house so set it on fire, got out of control and wife, son and another women were killed.

34
Q

What was the legal principle in Goodfellow (1986)?

A

CoA upheld conviction, rejected argument that as he has not wanted their deaths his acts were not ‘directed’ at V’s

35
Q

What is the mens rea for unlawful act manslaughter?

A

The mens rea of the original crime, had a death not occurred.

36
Q

What is the case associated with the Mens Rea of Unlawful Act Manslaughter?

A

Andrews (2003)

37
Q

What happened in Andrews (2003)?

A

D injected V with prescription drug with V’s agreement. V died.

38
Q

What is the legal principle in Andrews (2003)?

A

D convicted based on offence of unauthorised administration of specified medicinal products, offence was strict liability, so did not need to prove mens rea.

39
Q

Evaluate Unlawful Act Manslaughter.

A

Covers wide range of conduct.
Causation has caused problems for courts e.g. Kennedy.
Difficulty establishing which series of unlawful acts is dangerous.
Argued there should be liability for omissions.
Low levels of mens rea required.
Church test is strict.

40
Q

What is Gross Negligence Manslaughter?

A

Involves D who’s not initially committing any criminal act. Committed when individual owes a duty of care to another and breaches it in a very negligent way.

41
Q

Which case established a general duty of care? What is it known as?

A

Donoghue v Stevenson (1932)
‘Neighbour principle’ - where the death of a person is caused by another’s negligence so severe as to deserve criminal punishment.

42
Q

What is the leading case in Gross Negligence Manslaughter?

A

Adomako (1994)

43
Q

What happened in Adomako (1994)?

A

D was anaesthetist, V’s oxygen tube became disconnected during surgery, D failed to notice which lead to V having major brain damage and dying.

44
Q

What is the legal principle in Adomako (1994)?

A

Expert witnesses stated that a competent anaesthetist would have noticed a problem within 15 seconds. Convicted of GNM.

45
Q

What three things does Gross Negligence Manslaughter require under Adomako (1994)?

A
  1. D must owe V a duty of care
  2. D must have breached said duty and breach caused death
  3. D must have been grossly negligent
46
Q

What two cases are associated with 1. Duty of Care?

A

Wacker (2003)

Willoughby (2004)

47
Q

What happened in Wacker (2003)?

A

D was lorry driver who helped smuggle 60 illegal immigrant to UK, on ferry crossing closed air vent so they wouldn’t be discovered. 58 died from lack of air.

48
Q

What is the legal principle in Wacker (2003)?

A

Wacker argued he did not owe them a duty of care. CoA upheld conviction stating ‘simply because the two were engaged in some joint unlawful activity’ does not release Wacker from a duty of care.

49
Q

What happened in Willoughby (2004)?

A

Owner of pub hired V to help burn it down to claim insurance. Started fire but caused explosion so building collapsed killing V.

50
Q

What is the legal principle in Willoughby (2004)?

A

Held D owed V duty of care as he was the owner, stood to gain and was involved in setting the fire.

51
Q

What is the main rule in 2. Breach of Duty?

A

D has to reach standard of care expected from a reasonably competent person doing whatever they were doing.

52
Q

What four cases are associated with 2. Breach of Duty?

A

Bateman (1925)
Litchfield (1998)
Singh (1999)
Adomako (1995)

53
Q

What is the duty of care test associated with Bateman (1925)?

A

If D is doctor, judged against what a reasonably competent doctor would do.

54
Q

What happened in Litchfield (1998)?

A

D was owner and master of sailing ship, sailed to close to rocks causing death of three crew members.

55
Q

What is the duty of care test associated with Litchfield (1998)?

A

D sailing sail boat has to meet the standard of a reasonable competent sailor.

56
Q

What happened in Singh (1999)?

A

D was landlord who did not maintain his property properly and some tenants died as gas fire was faulty.

57
Q

What is the duty of care test associated with Singh (1999)?

A

A landlord has to be a reasonable competent landlord.

58
Q

What is the duty of care test associated with Adomako (1995)?

A

An anaesthetist must be a reasonably competent anaesthetist.

59
Q

What are the two cases associated with 3. Gross Negligence?

A

Bateman (1925)

Misra (2004)

60
Q

What happened in Bateman (1925)?

A

D was doctor who helped woman give birth at house, despite medical problems, he didn’t send her to hospital for 5 days.

61
Q

What is the legal principle in Bateman (1925)?

A

Conviction quashed as it was felt he carried out normal procedure that a competent doctor would have done. CoA held that for GNM prosecution must prove D;s negligence to be so gross that compensation between parties is insufficient.

62
Q

What happened in Misra (2004)?

A

2 D’s senior house officers in hospital, responsible for post-operative care of V, didn’t noticed wound had become infected, it went untreated and V died.

63
Q

What is the legal principle in Misra (2004)?

A

CoA held that jury didn’t have to determine what would be sufficiently gross to amount to crime, that was a question of law. Only had or decide if conduct in case was sufficiently gross.

64
Q

Evaluate Gross Negligence Manslaughter.

A

Test is circular.
Elliot and Quinn say ‘it is absurd to ask the jury to decide whether negligence goes beyond matter of compensation.
Can lead to inconsistent verdicts.
Overlap between civil and criminal concepts.
If D foresees risk, shouldn’t matter if reasonable person would foresee it.
Glanville Williams argues gross negligence is not a sufficient basis for manslaughter.
Little guidance is given to juries.

65
Q

What is the Actus Reus of Subjective Recklessness Manslaughter?

A

Defendant caused death, no need to establish duty of care.

66
Q

What is the Mens Rea of Subjective Recklessness Manslaughter?

A

Defendant must have foreseen a risk of death or serious injury and have assessed that risk was at least highly probable.

67
Q

What case is associated with Subjective Recklessness Manslaughter?

A

Lidar (2000)

68
Q

What happened in Lidar (2000)?

A

D drove car 200m with V hanging out of window. Feet were caught in wheel and he was run over and killed.

69
Q

What is the legal principle in Lidar (2000)?

A

Trial judge summed up using subjective recklessness, D argued he should have used gross negligence, argument failed, CoA upheld conviction.

Law A2 (9 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions