Involuntary Manslaughter

Question 1

What is involuntary manslaughter

Answer 1

Unlawful killing where d does not have the intention

Question 2

Unlawful act manslaughter/constructive

Answer 2

D must do unlawful act
Act must be considered dangerous on objective test
Cause death
Have required mr for unlawful act

Question 3

Franklin

Answer 3

Held civil wrong not enough to create liability for UAM

Question 4

Lamb

Answer 4

Lamb and friend fooling around with a revolver. No criminal unlawful act as friend felt no fear it could not be classed as assault

Question 5

Lowe

Answer 5

D convicted of wilfully neglecting his baby son. COA quashed conviction for manslaughter as an omission cannot create liability for UAM

Question 6

Church

Answer 6

Held that for the dangerous act it is an objective test of all sober and reasonable people would recognise the risk of some harm

Question 7

Larkin

Answer 7

D threatened another man with an open cut razor to frighten him. Drunk mistress fell into blade which killed her. Conviction upheld act of threatening technical assault and act was dangerous because likely to injure someone. Does not matter that d did not realise risk

Question 8

Mitchell

Answer 8

D tried to push in queue at post office. Elderly man told him off so he punched him. Man stumbled knocking over elderly woman who died from her injures. Convicted of UAM.

Question 9

JM and SM

Answer 9

Brothers, asked to leave nightclub later returned so fight broke out with doormen. One doormans renal artery ruptured and he died. Fight held to be substantial cause of vs death.

Question 10

Goodfellow

Answer 10

D decided to set fire to his flat so the council would have to re home him. His wife, son and another woman died in the fire. COA upheld conviction

Question 11

Dawson

Answer 11

3 Ds attempted to rob petrol station attendant died from a heart attack. Not convicted of UAM. Causing fear through attempted robbery not a dangerous act.

Question 12

Watson

Answer 12

2s Ds threw brick through window of house intending to steal. Occupier was elderly and frail. They verbally abused him and left. He died from a heart attack. Judge said in deciding whether act was dangerous take the view of a reasonable bystander with the knowledge available to the D. No evidence they knew his age or state of health.

Question 13

Bristol, Dunn and delay

Answer 13

Ds part of gang who agreed to burgle Vs workshop. Down long drive knew of risk that someone would try to stop them escaping. V found dead near workshop. COA upheld their conviction as circumstances of burglary meant reasonable and sober person would recognise risk of some harm.

Question 14

Cato

Answer 14

D and v prepared injection of heroin and water then injected each other. D convicted of UAM.

Question 15

Dalby

Answer 15

D supplied drug and v self injected. Conviction quashed held self injection broke chain of causation.

Question 16

Kennedy

Answer 16

D prepared injection but v self injected. Initially convicted COA upheld this referred back to COA by CCRC then appealed to HOL. Quashed conviction held v self injecting was an intervening act which broke the chain.

Question 17

Rogers

Answer 17

D participated by holding belt around vs arm whilst he self injected. COA held that this was not joint involvement.

Question 18

Dias

Answer 18

D experienced heroin addict v not known to inject heroin. D prepared injection v self injected. UAM quashed. COA suggested conviction of GNM might be possible where a DOC could be established could be duty to supply and prepare drugs

Question 19

Newbury and jones

Answer 19

Ds 2 teenage boys pushed paving stone off bridge hit train and killed guard. HOL confirmed it was not necessary to prove that the D foresaw any harm from his act

Question 20

Gross negligence manslaughter

Answer 20

From adomako (anaesthetist case) appears elements are:
Existence of a DOC towards v
Breach of that DOC which causes death
Gross negligence which the jury considers to be criminal

Question 21

Donoghue v Stevenson

Answer 21

In adomako lord mackay said ordinary principles of negligence in civil law applied to establish if there is a DOC. Can be act or omission

Question 22

Singh

Answer 22

D landlord faulty gas fire caused death of tenants. Duty on d to maintain property

Question 23

Litchfield

Answer 23

D owner and master of a sailing ship. Sailed knowing engines might fail because of contamination of fuel. Ship blown into rocks 3 crew members died. Held D owed DOC

Question 24

Khan and Khan

Answer 24

COA stated obiter that duty situations could be extended to other areas

Question 25

Wacker

Answer 25

D agreed to bring 60 illegal immigrants into England. Agreed air vent would sometimes be closed to avoid discovery. Crossing took longer than normal 58 died. D clearly assumed DOC

Question 26

Evans

Answer 26

COA held that a DOC can exist where D has created a state of affairs which he knows or ought to reasonably know has become life threatening

Question 27

Bateman

Answer 27

Negligence has to be gross. D doctor attending home birth part of woman’s uterus came away he did not send her to hospital and she later died. Conviction quashed as he has carried out the procedures any competent doctor would have done

Question 28

Misra and another

Answer 28

V had operation on knee. 2 Ds senior doctors failed to identify infection. Appealed saying breach of art 7 of ECHR punishment without law. COA held adomako clearly laid down elements so no breach. Test in GNM involves consideration of risk of death

Question 29

Reckless manslaughter - lidar

Answer 29

COA upheld judges conviction even though judge referred to recklessness in his directions to jury. Asked to leave public house Range Rover case

Question 30

Ao2 for UAM

Answer 30

Wide range of conduct
Death as an unexpected result
Objective part of the test

Question 31

Reform of UAM

Answer 31

LC 2006 report murder, manslaughter and infanticide first degree, second degree and manslaughter

Question 32

Ao2 GNM

Answer 32

Test is circular
Inconsistent verdicts juries
Civil test for negligence should not be used in criminal cases
Risk of death

Question 33

Reform of GNM

Answer 33

1996 LC proposed should be 2 categories of killing involving negligence reckless killing and killing by gross carelessness
2006 murder manslaughter and infanticide restates existing law but prosecution has to prove that the D is capable of appreciating that risk at the material time

Question 34

Reform of reckless

Answer 34

LC 2006 recommended abolition of it