Involuntary manslaughter Flashcards
What are the two main ways of committing involuntary manslaughter?
1) unlawful act manslaughter-V dies as result of unlawful act.
2) Gross negligence manslaughter-V dies as result of breach of duty
What is unlawful act manslaughter?
Where D causes death through doing an unlawful act with necessary mens rea for unlawful act.
What is gross negligence manslaughter?
When D causes death through a breach of duty.
What are the 4 elements of unlawful act manslaughter?
A) Unlawful act committed
B) Objectively dangerous-act must be objectively dangerous
C) Death-the act must cause the death
D) Mens rea-D must have mens rea for the unlawful act
What is the maximum sentence for involuntary manslaughter?
Life imprisonment
What case illustrates the principle that the ‘unlawful act’ must be a criminal unlawful act?
Give brief facts.
R v Lamb (1967)
Facts: D pointed gun at V but V and D did not believe there was a genuine danger as it was a revolver. Therefore it was not considered an assault.
The case of R v Lamb (1967) supports what principle?
Give brief facts.
Principle: That the unlawful act must be a criminal unlawful act.
Facts: D pointed gun at V but V and D did not believe there was a genuine danger as it was a revolver. Therefore it was not considered an assault.
What principle does the case of R v Lowe (1973) support?
Give brief facts.
Principle: The unlawful act must be ‘positive’ (as in not an omission)
Facts: D wilfully neglected baby son.
What case supports the principle that the unlawful act must be ‘positive’ in order to secure a conviction?
Give brief facts.
R v Lowe (1973)
Facts: D wilfully neglected baby son.
What principle does the case of R v Larkin (1943) support?
Give brief facts.
Principle: an objective risk of some harm
must be present for a conviction of involuntary manslaughter.
Facts: D threatened another man with sharp razer. Woman intervened and was injured herself and died. D guilty of manslaughter.
What case supports the principle that there must be an objective risk of some harm?
Give brief facts.
R v Larkin (1943)
D threatened another man with sharp razer. Woman intervened and was injured herself and died. D guilty of unlawful act manslaughter.
What principle does the case of R v Mitchell (1983) support?
Give brief facts.
Principle: That the unlawful act doesn’t have to be aimed at the true V.
Facts: D pushed man in queue who subsequently bumped into another who fell and died.
What case supports the principle that the unlawful act doesn’t have to be aimed at the true V?
Give brief facts.
R v Mitchell (1983)
Facts: D pushed man in queue who subsequently bumped into another who fell and died.
What principle does the case of R v JM and SM (2012) support?
Give brief facts.
Principle: That even ‘some harm’ foreseen not just the actual harm that happens is sufficient.
Facts: D’s got into fight with bouncers and one bouncer died from a ruptured artery. D’s charged with unlawful act manslaughter as some harm was foreseen by the reasonable person.
The case of R v Goodfellow (1986) supports what principle?
Give brief facts.
Principle: That the unlawful act doesn’t have to be aimed at a person but also property.
Facts: D intentionally committed arson in his flat but unintentionally caused some deaths.
What case supports the principle that the unlawful act doesn’t have to be aimed at a person but can also include property?
Give brief facts.
R v Goodfellow (1986)
Facts: D intentionally committed arson in his flat but unintentionally caused some deaths.
What does the case of R v Dawson (1985) illustrate regarding the unlawful act itself?
That the unlawful act must have a risk of causing harm in itself not just a robbery.
What principle does the case of R v Birstow, Dunn and Delay (2013) support?
Give brief facts.
Principle: that if reasonable person could foresee some harm then that is sufficient for an unlawful act that would otherwise normally be harmless.
Facts: D’s robbed warehouse situated on long drive and used two vehicles-D’s ran V over. D’s charged with unlawful act manslaughter.
What case supports the principle that if some harm is reasonably foreseeable in the commissioning of any unlawful act (even ones that would otherwise be harmless) that is sufficient for a conviction of manslaughter.
Give brief facts.
R v Birstow, Dunn and Delay (2013)
Facts: D’s robbed warehouse situated on long drive and used two vehicles-D’s ran V over. D’s charged with unlawful act manslaughter.
What principle does the case of R v Williams and Davis (1992) support?
Give brief facts.
Principle: novus actus interveniens
Facts: V jumped out of D’s car at 30mph. No evidence was found that D’s were attempting to rob V. D’s not guilty of manslaughter.
What case is an example of a novus actus interveniens?
Give brief facts.
R v Williams and Davis (1992)
Facts: V jumped out of D’s car at 30mph. No evidence was found that D’s were attempting to rob V. D’s not guilty of manslaughter.
What principle does the case of R v Kennedy (2007) support?
Give brief facts.
Principle: that a V self-injecting a noxious substance supplied by D does NOT constitute an act on the part of D.
Facts: D prepared a syringe of heroine and passed to V. V self-injected and died. conviction of manslaughter quashed due to novus actus interveniens on the part of the V.
What case supports the principle that D self-injecting a noxious substance supplied by D does not constitute an act on the part of D?
Give brief facts.
R v Kennedy (2007)
Facts: D prepared a syringe of heroine and passed to V. V self-injected and died. conviction of manslaughter quashed due to novus actus interveniens on the part of the V.
What principle does the case of DPP v Newbury (1976) support?
Give brief facts.
Principle: D need only have the mens rea for the unlawful act and does not need to foresee harm.
Facts: D’s were 2 teenage boys who pushed stone onto railway track killing train driver. D’s convicted of unlawful act manslaughter.
What case supports the principle that D need only have the mens rea for the unlawful act and does not need to foresee harm?
Give brief facts.
DPP v Newbury (1976)
Facts: D’s were 2 teenage boys who pushed stone onto railway track killing train driver. D’s convicted of unlawful act manslaughter.
What is gross negligence manslaughter?
Where D negligence causes death of V.
What type of manslaughter is the case of R v Adomako (1994)?
Give brief facts.
Gross negligence manslaughter.
Facts: D was an anaesthetist on duty during a surgery and negligently allowed the oxygen tube to become unattached killing the V.
What case is an example of gross negligence manslaughter?
Give brief facts.
R v Adomako (1994)
Facts: D was an anaesthetist on duty during a surgery and negligently allowed the oxygen tube to become unattached killing the V.
What are the four elements to a gross negligence manslaughter conviction set out by the house of lords following the findings in the case of R v Adomako (1994)
A) Duty of care-must exist
B) Act or omission in breach of that duty
C) Death-which causes death
D) Gross negligence-must amount to gross negligence
What civil case does the principles of negligence come from and which are applied IOT find a duty of care?
Give brief facts.
Caparo v Dickman (1990)
Facts: Company takeover of another company but finds the accounts are even worse than stated.
Give an example case of a breach of duty of care IOT apply it to a question of gross negligence manslaughter.
Give brief facts.
R v Singh (1999)
Facts: D was a landlord and faulty gas fire caused death of tenants. D owed a duty to manage the property properly.
How did the verdict in R v Wacker (2003) differ from the rules in civil law?
Give brief facts.
The V’s were doing something illegal and if it had been a civil case wouldn’t have been allowed to claim.
Facts: V’s were illegal migrants who were stored by D in an air tight container. D charged with gross negligence manslaughter.
What case demonstrated circumstances where the supply of a noxious substance can create a state of affairs that can constitute gross negligence manslaughter?
What are the conditions?
Give brief facts.
R v Evans (2009)
Facts: D supplied drugs to V who self injected. But D was aware of risk to V life and neglected to do anything.
Conditions are: D is aware of risk to V AND
1) D supplied
2) D had relationship
3) Joint enterprise
4) Duty of care-was voluntarily assumed by D
What does the case of R v Evans (2009) demonstrate regarding the liability of someone supplying drugs to a V who dies?
Give brief facts.
That supply of drugs can constitute gross negligence manslaughter (even if self injected) IF-
D was aware of risk to V AND
1) D supplied
2) D had relationship
3) Joint enterprise
4) Duty of care-was voluntarily assumed by D
Facts: D supplied drugs to V who died. D was aware of risk to V and was shown to have voluntarily assumed a duty of care.
What case gives the explanation for ‘gross’ negligence?
Give brief facts.
R v Misra (2004)
Facts: D’s were doctors who were caring for V who died of infection that they failed to identify. Gross negligence manslaughter.
The case of R v Misra (2004) gives the explanation for what element of involuntary manslaughter?
‘Gross’ negligence
What is ‘gross’ negligence?
When the negligence is 1) serious enough to be more than trivial and 2) is serious enough to endanger life.
What case established the three part test?
Give brief facts.
Caparo v Dickman (1990)
Facts: C conducted corporate take over of D business but found published accounts were not accurate.
Caparo v Dickman (1990) established what?
The three part test.
What is the three part test for establishing a duty of care.
1) Damage or harm reasonably foreseeable?
2) Proximity of relationship?
3) fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty?
What is the mens rea for gross negligence manslaughter?
D’s behaviour creates an obvious risk (the risk doesn’t have to be known by the D)
What case fist explained the need for ‘gross’ in gross negligence?
R v Bateman (1925)
Facts: Doctor who did everything he understood to correctly deliver a baby was not guilty when a patient died after childbirth.
R v Bateman (1925)
First explanation of ‘gross’ in gross negligence.
Facts: Doctor who did everything he understood to correctly deliver a baby was not guilty when a patient died after childbirth.
Juries not consistent in finding a ‘gross’ negligence on the part of D.
R v Finlay (2001)
Facts: scout who died whilst mountaineering with a scout instructor. Not guilty.
R v Finlay (2001)
Juries not consistent in finding someone to be ‘grossly’ negligent.
Facts: scout who died whilst mountaineering with a scout instructor. Not guilty.
What is the meaning of ‘gross’ in gross negligence and what case summarised it?
Obvious risk of death-CPS won’t prosecute for anything less.
Misra (2004)
Development on the law of ‘gross’ in gross negligence.
1) Bateman (1925)-Introduced
2) Adomako (1994)-Unclear, risk to life or in general
3) Finlay (2001)-Inconsistency in jury verdicts
4) Misra (2004)-Summarises the law.
