Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

A2 Law > Involuntary Manslaughter > Flashcards

Involuntary Manslaughter Flashcards

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

Define IVMS?

A

Unlawful killing of another human being without the intention necessary for murder

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

What are the 3 types of IVMS?

A
  1. Unlawful Act MS (constructive)
  2. Gross Negligence MS
  3. Subjective Reckless MS
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

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

A
  1. An unlawful act
  2. Unlawful act must be dangerous
  3. Unlawful act must have caused the death
    AR is still as required for murder
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

What case established that the unlawful act must be criminal, not a tort?

A

Franklin (1883)
D threw box into sea
Hit winner on head, died
NG; no criminal act in 1st place

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

Franklin (1883)

(Sea) UA

A

D threw box into the sea
Hit swimmer on the head, died
NG; no criminal act in 1st place

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

What case established that the unlawful act must be a crime itself?

A

Andrews v DPP (1937)

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

Larkin (1943)

(Razor) UA

A

D waved open razor at man, to terrify him
Man’s drunken mistress fell against razor
Throat cut, died
CA upheld D’s MS conviction; = unlawful dangerous act - intentional assault

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

R v Lamb (1967)

(Revolver) UA

A

D + friend = messing around with revolver
Didn’t know how it worked
= 2 bullets in chamber but assumed neither - opposite barrel
D pulled trigger, barrel rotated + shot friend
Unlawful act = assault
BUT no MR for this, friends didn’t take it seriously
Therefore no unlawful act leading to death

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

R v Simon Slingsby (1995)

UA

A 
D met woman in nightclub
Back to her flat, had consensual sex
D caused internal bleeding, she died
D charged unlawful + dangerous act MS
CA: = NG as there was no offence
D had no MR of ANY offence, not liable
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Can an omission lead to an unlawful act MS?

What case illustrates this?

A

NO!
Has to be an act
R v Lowe (1973)

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

R v Lowe (1973)

(Child) UA

A

D committed offence of neglecting child
Under Child + Young persons Act 1933
Although neglect led to death of child
No conviction of unlawful act MS; no +ve act

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

Who must see the unlawful act as dangerous?

A

The reasonable person

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

R v Church (1996)

(Van) UA

A 
D + women went to have sex in his van
D = unable to satisfy her
Had fight, he punched her, knocked her unconscious
D panicked thought she = dead
Threw body in river
V = actually alive, but drowned
CA: reasonable person must foresee SOME HARM ABLEIT SERIOUS HARM
Upheld MS conviction
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

What did the CA say in the case of R v Church (1966)?

A

Only a reasonable person must foresee some harm albeit serious harm

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

What type of test is used in unlawful act manslaughter?

A

Purely objective
D doesn’t have to consider any risk of harm
Reasonable bystander would only need to force risk of SLIGHT harm

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

Why can the objective test in unlawful act MS be considered harsh?
Name a case that illustrates this?

A

D’s may not realise that their actions = dangerous

DPP v Newbury and Jones (1977)

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

DPP v Newbury and Jones (1977)

(Railway bridge) UA

A

D’s = 2 15 year old boys
Threw concrete block off railway bridge
Hit train passing underneath + killed guard
Defence tried to argue, age meant didn’t realise act = dangerous
CA upheld convictions; act would’ve obviously been dangerous to bystander
No characteristics of D could be taken into account

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

What is the sober + reasonable man assumed to have?

What case illustrates this?

A

Same knowledge as D
Might not be aware of something about the V that makes them especially vulnerable

R v Dawson (1985)

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

R v Dawson (1985)

(petrol station) UA

A

V = 60 year old man working in petrol station
Ds attempted armed robbery
V pressed alram, Ds ran off
Unknown to Ds, V had serious heart condition
Died of heart attack soon after
Convictions = quashed; reasonable bystander wouldn’t have know about V’s condition

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

Which case is similar to R v Dawson (1985)?

(Home) UA

A

R v Watson (1989)
Ds committed house burglary (87 yr man)
Had fatal heart attack shortly after they left
Conviction = quashed; although V’s frailty = obvious
Couldn’t prove that burglary caused heart attack

21
Q

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

A

Casual link between D’s unlawful dangerous act + death of V

22
Q

R v Johnstone (2007)

(spitting) UA

A

V = playing cricket with son
Group of about 20 youths approached + started spitting
Threw stones + sticks, at least 1 hit V on head
Shortly after died of heart attack, caused by adrenaline rush
Youths had caused heart attack BUT = unclear it due to shouting + spitting (not dangerous) or throwing sticks (CA)
SEEMS UNSATISFACTORY TO SEPARATE 2 ACTS

23
Q

What types of cases have also caused problems with the courts?

  • Unlawful act
A

Drug cases
Cato (1976)
Kennedy (no 2) (2007)

24
Q

Cato (1976)

(drug) UA

A

Drug dealer injected V with heroin
V died
Unlawful act = administering noxious substance (s23 OAPA)
CA upheld MS conviction

25
Q

Kennedy (no 2) (2007)

(drug) UA

A

Drug dealer gave full heroin syringe to V
Self-injected, died of overdose
HL quashed conviction, held:
‘Drug dealer = never responsible for user’s death if user = fully informed + responsible adult who voluntarily self-administer the drug

26
Q

Mitchell (1983)

(post) UA

A 
D argued with man queue in post office
D pushed man, fell against 89 yr woman
Knocked her over, broke her leg, died
D = convicted MS
CA: = irrelevant that D's actions weren't aimed at V, simply issue of causation
D's actions = objectively dangerous
27
Q

Goodfellow (1986)

(council house) UA

A

D wanted to move from council house
Little chance of this happening
D set fire to house - look like petrol bomb
Fire got out of control
D’s wife, son + another woman died
CA: upheld MS conviction + rejected argument that actions weren’t directed at them, didn’t want their deaths

28
Q

What is the MR needed for an unlawful act MS?

A

MR for the crime leading to the death
No further mental element = needed
If = strict liability case, D may not need any MR
- Andrews (2003)

29
Q

Andrews (2003)

(insulin) UA

A

With V’s consent D injected V with prescription drug insulin IOT produce a ‘rush’
V died soon afterwards
D = convicted of unlawful act MS
Under Medicines Act 1968
Unauthorised administration of specified medicinal products = strict liability offence
No need for prosecution to prove MR
V didn’t self-inject, chain of causation = not broken

30
Q

What are 5 evaluation points of unlawful act manslaughter?

A
  1. Covers wide range of conduct - from as minor as pushing someone down the stairs to almost murder
  2. Causation has caused problems for the Cts (Kennedy, raises issue about ‘choosing’)
  3. Difficult to establish what act = dangerous in a series of events (Johnstone)
  4. Biggest criticism = low level of MR required
  5. Church test = very strict
31
Q

What is gross negligence MS?

A

Involves a D who = not initially committing any sort of criminal act, they = doing something they = entitled/ obliged to do
BUT do it so badly that someone dies as a result
They owe a nut of care + breaches it in a very negligent way

32
Q

How is GNMS different to omission cases under civil law?

A

Civil law - a person who fails to take care as a reasonable person would is described ad negligent (Donoghue v Stevenson)
Where death is caused due to this negligent behaviour it comes under criminal law
Described as gross negligence
Can give rise to gross negligence MS

33
Q

What is the leading case in GNMS?

Describe the case

A

R v Adomako (1994)
Patient undergoing op, detached retina
D = anaesthetist, job = patient unconscious but breathing
Oxygen tube became disconnected
D didn’t realise for several minutes
V into cardiac arrest, brain damage, subsequently died
2 expert witnesses: failure to notice = ‘abysmal’, any competent anaesthetist would’ve noticed the problem within 15 sec
HL upheld conviction of GNMS

34
Q

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

A
  1. D must owe V a duty of care
  2. D must’ve breached duty + breach = COD
  3. D must’ve been grossly negligent that a jury can justify convicting them
35
Q

What are many of the commission cases?

A

Gross negligence MS cases

- D = failed o act appropriately where they owe a duty of care

36
Q

Wacker (2003)

(Chinese) GNMS

A

D = lorry driver, tried to smuggle 60 illegal Chinese immigrants into UK
On ferry crossing from Holland, closed air vent on container (more difficult to be discovered)
Impossible to open vent from inside lorry
58 people died; lack of air
D argued: all involved in criminal activity, didn’t owe them duty of care
CA: upheld conviction, D owed duty of care to illegal immigrants that he agreed to smuggle into UK

37
Q

What was held in the case of Evans?

  • GNMS
A

Question of whether a duty of care existed was a question of law for the judge

38
Q

What is the main question asked in GNMS?

A

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

e. g if D = doctor, judged against what a reasonably competent doctor would do
- Bateman (1925)

39
Q

What case was the concept of GN first explained in?

Describe the case

A

Bateman (1925)
D = doctor, attended women in childbirth at her home
Despite medical problems didn’t send her to the hospital for 5 days
Conviction = quashed; felt he carried out normal procedures that any competent doctor would’ve done
CA: for GN conviction the prosecution must prove that it = beyond a mere matter of compensation

40
Q

In the case of Bateman (1925), what did the CA say the prosecution needed to prove IOT get an GNMS? (2)

A
  1. D’s negligence was ‘so gross’ that compensation between parties = insufficient
  2. D showed such disregard for life + safety of others, that is requires punishment
41
Q

How has the decision of Adomako been criticised?

A

For uncertainty, seemed to tell jury that they could convict if they thought that the behaviour deserved it
Argued in Misra (2004) = breach of Art 7 ECHR, requires law to be certain
CA rejected appeal; law was clear
- decision was up to the judge not the jury

42
Q

What was clarified in the case of Misra (2004)?

A

Test involved consideration of a risk of death not just a risk of injury

43
Q

What are 4 evaluation points of GNMS?

A
  1. Test can lead to inconsistent verdicts, one jury may convict when another would acquit
  2. = overlap between civil + criminal concept (criminal = more subjective, looks at D’s state of mind, civil a duty of care = defined in objective terms)
  3. Little guidance = given to juries therefore always the risk of inconsistent verdicts (Clarkson + Keating)
  4. Elliot + Quinn: ‘absurd to ask the jury of the negligence goes beyond a mere matter of compensation’
44
Q

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

A

Replacing current law with 3 tier structure of homicide offences:
1st degree M, 2nd degree M, MS
MS would cover: GNMS, ULAMS, loss of control, diminished responsibility
Would ABOLISH RECKLESS MS BUT worst cases = included in 2nd M (i.e intending to cause harm)
G initially accepted proposals but later withdrew

45
Q

What did the law commission suggest about the requirement of a duty of care?

A

No longer be requirement of a duty of care
BUT requirement that ‘it would’ve been obvious to a reasonable person in the D’s shoes that the conduct involved a risk of death’
THIS WOULD MOVE AWAY FROM THE CIVIL LAW TEST - MAKE IT CLEARER

46
Q

What did the case of Lidar try to argue?

A

That subjective reckless MS no longer exists, following the decision in Adomako
CA disagreed

47
Q

What is the AR for SRMS?

A

D caused a death

No need to establish duty of care

48
Q

What is the MR for SRMS?

A

D must have foreseen a risk of death/ serious injury + have assessed that the risk = at least highly probable

49
Q

What case illustrates SRMS?

Describe the case

A

Lidar (2000)
D drove car 200m with V hanging 1/2 out of the window
Feet eventually caught in wheel, run over + killed
Trial judge summed up using test of subjective recklessness
CA upheld conviction
D tried to argue that judge should’ve used GN test, failed

A2 Law (18 decks)

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