INVOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER

Question 1

What is the difference between murder and involuntary manslaughter offences?

Answer 1

lack of malice aforethought

Question 2

When would unlawful act manslaughter be an appropriate charge?

Answer 2

When the accused lacks the mens rea for murder but kills someone in the course of committing an unlawful (criminal) act

Question 3

What are the 4 components of unlawful act manslaughter?

Answer 3

DPP v Newbury and Jones:

(1) the defendants intentionally (voluntarily) did an act;
(2) the act was unlawful;
(3) the unlawful act was dangerous; and
(4) the unlawful act caused the death of the victim.

Question 4

What are the three aspects of whether an act is unlawful?

Answer 4

a criminal act

• both actus reus & mens rea needs to be proven
• doesn’t need to be serious, can be any offence

an intrinsically unlawful act
- The unlawful act cannot be based on a lawful act, which becomes unlawful only because of the negligent or reckless manner in which it is performed e.g. driving.

an act rather than omission

Question 5

How is the danger of an unlawful act assessed?

Answer 5

Objective test

• whether a sober + reasonable person would inevitably recognise the risk of some harm
• physical harm not emotional harm
• harm foreseen does not need to have been the one that was actually caused

Question 6

Is D liable if she directly administers the drug to V, for example by taking a syringe and injecting V with it, even if V consents?

Answer 6

Yes (R v Cato) - consent will be no defence

Question 7

Is D liable if she merely supplies V with the drugs, or assists V, such as by filling the syringe before passing it on to V, who then takes the drugs themselves?

Answer 7

No (R v Kennedy) - if V freely and voluntarily self-administered and is a fully-informed and responsible adult

Question 8

What is the difference between gross negligence manslaughter and unlawful act manslaughter?

Answer 8

In gross negligence manslaughter, there is no requirement that the defendant was involved in a criminal act.

Question 9

When would gross negligence manslaughter be an appropriate charge?

Answer 9

Where the defendant has breached a duty of care owed to V.
- This can be done through a positive act or by an omission (which must be considered so bad that it necessitates a criminal charge).

Question 10

What are the 5 components of gross negligence manslaughter?

Answer 10

R v Adomako:

a) the existence of a duty of care;
b) breach of that duty;
c) that the breach causes death;
d) that there was a risk of death; and
e) that the breach of duty was so bad as to amount to ‘gross negligence’.

Question 11

What is the meaning of duty of care in criminal law?

Answer 11

The same as in tort (even when liability would be avoided in tort)
Can be through a positive act or by an omission

Question 12

What would constitute a breach of duty in criminal law?

Answer 12

The same as in tort

- falling below the standard expected of a reasonable person (including any special skills)

Question 13

Would a serious risk of injury be enough for a gross negligence manslaughter offence?

Answer 13

No - there must a risk of death (Singh)

Question 14

What constitutes gross negligence?

Answer 14

• Where the defendant is responsible for a series of acts/omissions rather than a single event, this may make it easier for the jury to find gross negligence(Misra,Litchfield)
• A single devastating act can be grossly negligent (Adomako)
• Where the defendant’s mistakes are brought about by mistakes of others, this may be a reason for not convicting, (Prentice & Sullman)
• There can be gross negligence by the defendant, even if others are also responsible for the circumstances leading up to the death (Singh)
• If the defendant has knowledge/experience that should alert them to the danger

Question 15

Will D’s mental state affect whether their actions constitute gross negligence?

Answer 15

• There is no requirement for any mental state,Adomako.
• However, the defendant’s state of mind is not irrelevant e.g. it was a key point inLitchfieldthat Litchfield would have seen the serious risk of death.
• If someone has seen a high risk of death or has a ‘couldn’t care less’ attitude to a high risk of death, they are highly likely to be convicted.
• The defendant’s state of mind may also work in their favour: if the defendant genuinely did not believe there was a risk, this is a factor that the court can take into account.