Involuntary Manslaughter

Question 1

What is involuntary manslaughter?

Answer 1

The unlawful killing without the intention necessary for murder (GBH or to kill)

Question 2

What are the 3 types of involuntary manslaughter?

Answer 2

Unlawful act manslaughter (constructive)
Gross negligence manslaughter
Subjective reckless manslaughter

Question 3

What are the 3 essential elements to the offence of unlawful act manslaughter?

Answer 3

Must be an unlawful act
Unlawful act must be dangerous
Unlawful act must have caused the death
ACTUS REUS IS STILL AS REQUIRED FOR MURDER

Question 4

The unlawful act must be a crime not a tort. Where was this established?

Answer 4

Franklin 1883 - threw box into sea and hit a swimmer on the head who died - not guilty as no criminal act in the first place

Question 5

The unlawful act must be a crime in itself. Where was this established?

Answer 5

Andrews v DPP 1937

Question 6

Explain the case Larkin 1943… (unlawful act)

Answer 6

Waved open razor at man to terrify him. Mans drunken mistress fell on it and cut her throat and died - convicted of manslaughter as waving a razor was a dangerous act - intentional assault

Question 7

Explain the case Lamb 1967… (unlawful act)

Answer 7

D and friend messing around with revolver, didn’t know how it worked and thought the bullets were in wrong position, pulled the trigger and barrel rotated and friend was shot - the unlawful act would have been assault but there was no mens rea for this so there was no unlawful act

Question 8

Explain the case Simon Slingsby 1995… (unlawful act)

Answer 8

D met woman in nightclub went back to her flat had consensual sex, caused internal injury and she died of septicaemia, he was charged with unlawful act manslaughter, COA said no because there was no original mens rea for ANY offence

Question 9

There HAS to be an act. Not just an omission in unlawful act manslaughter. Explain the case Lowe 1973…

Answer 9

D committed an offence of neglecting his child under Children and Young Persons Act 1933 - although neglect led to death of child this could not lead to conviction of unlawful act manslaughter as there was no act - it was an omission

Question 10

Who must see the act as dangerous?

Answer 10

The reasonable person

Question 11

Explain the case R v Church 1966… (unlawful act)

Answer 11

D and woman went to van to have sex, she laughed at him and mocked him and then he punched her knocking her unconcious. He thought she was dead so panicked and threw her into a river, she drowned
COA SAID THE REASONABLE PERSON MUST FORSEE SOME HARM ALBEIT NOT SERIOUS HARM - he was convicted

Question 12

Why can the objective test be harsh and give a case to illustrate this? (unlawful act)

Answer 12

Because some D’s may not realise their actions are dangerous
DPP v Newbury and Jones 1977 - 2 D’s 15 years old threw concrete block off railway bridge and hit train killing guard. Tried to argue their age meant they did not appreciate the act was dangerous, their convictions were still upheld

Question 13

The sober and reasonable person is assumed to have same knowledge as D, however they may not be aware of something that makes the victim vulnerable, as seen in…

Answer 13

R v Dawson 1985 - 60 year old man working in petrol station when the D’s attempted an armed robbery, victim pressed alarm and the D’s fled, unknown to them the V had a serious heart condition and died of a heart attack soon after. Victims convictions were quahed as the reasonable person would not have known this either

Question 14

Which case is similar to R v Dawson 1985?

Answer 14

R v Watson 1989 - D’s committed burglary in 87 year old mans house, he died of a heart attack shortly after they left. Their convictions were quashed because although the old mans frailty could be seen, it could not be proved that the burglary caused the heart attack

Question 15

What is a more recent case of R v Watson 1989? (unlawful act)…

Answer 15

Carey 2006 - 2 groups of girls arguing, victims group tried to move away but her hair was pulled and she was punched in the face, victim ran away and collapsed after 100m, died later that night of an diagnosed heart condition aggravated by the running. D was not convicted as punch had not caused the death and no-one would have forseen the condition
THE REASONABLE BYSTANDER WOULD NOT HAVE THOUGHT AN APPARENTLY HEALTHY 15 YEAR OLD TO HAVE DIED IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES

Question 16

What must the prosecution show in an unlawful act MS conviction?

Answer 16

A causal link between the unlawful and dangerous act and the death

Question 17

Explain the case R v Johnstone 2007… (unlawful act)

Answer 17

Playing cricket with his son, group of youths came up and started shouting and spitting at them, they then threw stones and sticks and one stone hit him on the head, he died later of a heart attack due to rush of adrenaline - said shouting and spitting is not a dangerous act and it was not clear whether that had triggered the heart attack which caused the death
SEEMS UNSATISFACTORY

Question 18

Drug cases have also caused issues for the courts. Explain the cases Cato 1976 and Kennedy 2007 (unlawful act)…

Answer 18

Cato - drug dealer injected victim with heroin and victim died - convicted under administering a noxious substance against the Persons Act 1981
Kennedy - drug dealer gave heroin filled syringe to victim who self-injected and died, HOL said drug dealer is never responsible for users death if user s fully informed and responsible who voluntary self-administers

Question 19

Explain the case Mitchell 1983… (unlawful act)

Answer 19

Argued with man infront of him in post office que where he punched him and hit lady behind and she died later - defendants acts were objectively dangerous

Question 20

Explain the case Goodfellow 1986… (unlawful act)

Answer 20

Wanted to move from council house and knew it probably wouldnt happen so set house alight so it would look like a petrol bomb attack, wife son and another women died when it got out of hand - was convicted as act was obviously dangerous even though not aimed at them

Question 21

What mens rea is needed for unlawful act manslaughter?

Answer 21

Mens rea for the crime leading to death (Larkin 1943 - the D’s mens rea for assault was enough for liability of manslaughter
NO FURTHER MENTAL ELEMENT IS NEEDED
IF IT IS A STRICT LIABILITY CASE THE D MAY NOT NEED ANY MENS REA (ANDREWS 2003)

Question 22

What are some of the evaluation points of unlawful act manslaughter? (4)

Answer 22

Covers a wide range of conduct - could be as minor as pushing someone down the stairs to almost murder
Causation has caused a problem in the courts, e.g the Kennedy case raises issues about addicts ‘choosing’
Difficult to establish in a series of events which one is dangerous as in Johnstone
Biggest criticism is low level of mens rea required

Question 23

What is gross negligence manslaughter?

Answer 23

Involves a D who is not intially committing any sort of criminal act, they are doing something they are entitled/obliged to do and do it so badly that someone dies as a result
WHEN THEY OWE A DUTY OF CARE AND BREACHES IT IN A VERY NEGLIGENT WAY

Question 24

How is gross negligence manslaughter different to ommission cases under the civil law?

Answer 24

Civil law - a person who fails to take care as the reasonable person is described as negligent (Donoghue v Stevenson 1932)
Where the death of a person is caused due to this negligent behaviour it comes under the criminal law and is described as gross negligence

Question 25

What is the leading case for gross negliegence?

Answer 25

Adomako 1994 - patient undergoing op for detached retina, D was the anaesthetist. The oxygen tube became distached and patient went into cardiac arrest and died from brain damage as lack of oxygen.
It was said a competent doctor would have realised within 15 seconds but D did not realise for several minutes

Question 26

What were the 3 principles established in Adomako that gross negligence MS requires?

Answer 26

1 - D must owe V a duty of care
2 - D must have breached the duty of care and the breach caused the death
3 - D must have been grossly negligent that a jury can justify convicting them

Question 27

What were many of the ommissions cases?

Answer 27

G.N.MS cases

Question 28

In Wacker 2003 the COA held a D owes a duty of care to illegal immigrants he decided to smuggle into the UK. Explain the case in terms of G.N.MS…

Answer 28

D was a lorry driver who tried to smuggle 60 Chinese immigrants into the country, on the ferry crossing from the Netherlands he closed the air vent to make it more difficult for them to be discovered, 58 people died from the lack of air, Wacker tried to argue as they were all involved in a criminal act he did not owe a duty of care, COA upheld his conviction

Question 29

What was held in Evans 2009 about the duty of care owed? GN

Answer 29

It was a question of law for the judge to decide

Question 30

What is the main question in GN MS?

Answer 30

How far did the D depart from the accepted standard of care in the circumstances?

Question 31

Explain the case Litchfield 1998… GN MS

Answer 31

Sailor was sailing a boat too close too the rocks and killed 3 crew members, was held that he owed them a duty of care as the captain

Question 32

Explain the case Singh 1999… GN MS

Answer 32

D was a landlord who did not do the checks on his property properly and a gas fire killed some of his tenants

Question 33

Where was the concept GN first explained?

Answer 33

Bateman 1925 - a doctor who attended a woman in childbirth at her home, despite medical problems he did not send her to hospital for 5 days. His conviction was quashed as it was felt he had carried out normal procedures any competent doctor would have done
“beyond a mere matter of compensation”

Question 34

What did the COA hold for a gross negligence MS conviction to arise?

Answer 34

Prosecution must prove the compensation between the parties was insufficient and the D showed such disregard for the life and safety of others that it deserved a punishment

Question 35

The decision in Adomako was criticised for uncertainty as it seemed to tell the jury they could convict when they wanted. Why was this?

Answer 35

Argued in Misra 2004 (2 senior residents responsible for post-op care of man who died as they didn’t recognise his wound was infected) It was contrary to Article 7 ECHR which requires the law to be certain, the COA rejected the appeal and held the law was clear as it was up to the judge not the jury

Question 36

What did the case Misra 2004 clarify in GN MS?

Answer 36

The test involved consideration of a risk of death not just a risk of injury

Question 37

What are some of the evaluation points of GN MS?

Answer 37

Elliot and Quinn - ‘it is absurd to ask the jury whether the negligence goes beyond a mere matter of compensation’
Test can lead to inconsistent verdicts - one jury may convict and another not
Confusion in overlap between civil and criminal concepts (criminal is more subjective as looks at D’s state of mind, civil a duty of care is defined in objective terms)
Little guidance is given to juries and therefore there is always the risk of inconsistent verdicts (Clarkson and Keating)

Question 38

What did the law commission propose in their report murder, manslaughter and infanticide 2006?

Answer 38

Replacing the current law with a 3 tier structure of homicide offences;
First degree murder
Second degree murder
Manslaughter
Manslaughter would cover; gross negligence manslaughter, loss of control, diminished responsibility and unlawful act manslaughter
IT WOULD ABOLISH RECKLESS MANSLAUGHTER BUT THE WORST CASES (I.E INTEDNING TO CAUSE HARM) WOULD GO INTO CATEGORY OF 2ND DEGREE MURDER
Never happened even after careful consideration

Question 39

What else did the law commission suggest about the reform of GN MS?

Answer 39

There should no longer be a requirement of a duty of care, it would be a requirement that “it would have been obvious to a reasonable person in the D’s shoes that the conduct involved a risk of death”
THIS WOULD THEN MOVE AWAY FROM A CIVIL LAW TEST AND MAKE IT CLEARER