INVOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER AND THE DEFENCE OF INTOXICATION Flashcards
What conditions must apply for unlawful act manslaughter?
The D must:
- do unlawful act
- which is dangerous
- which causes victim’s death (causation)
What counts as an unlawful act?
- D must commit crime requiring proof of intention/recklessness
- crimes of negligence won’t count
- if there is no type of unlawful act then unlawful manslaughter will not be conviction (R v Lamb)
- doesn’t need to be unlawful act that would harm or injure someone therefore could be theft or burglary (DPP v Newbury & Jones)
How do you determine if something is dangerous?
- dangerous means that the act carries the risk of some harm to some person, albeit not serious harm
- the test is entirely objective - would all sober and reasonable people think the act was dangerous
- the knowledge given to the sober reasonable person is what they would have gained if they were present at the scene of crime and watched act being performed (R v Ball)
R v Bristow
- burglary amounts to an unlawful and dangerous act
What did R v Bateman conclude?
- that a person can be criminally liable for causing death if they had been grossly negligent
What is the test in R v Adomako?
- manslaughter by gross negligence can be established if all the following elements are present:
1) a duty of care owed by D to V
- in R v Willoughby, the COA stated that whether a duty of care exists is usually a matter for the jury once the judge has decided that there is evidence capable of establishing a duty. However, in established duties, e.g, doctor to patient, or a statutory duty, the judge could direct the jury that a duty of care did exist.
2) a breach of that duty of care
3) a risk that D’s conduct could cause death
- in R v Singh [1999] Crim LR 582, the trial judge directed the jury that, in order to establish a charge of manslaughter by
gross negligence, ‘the circumstances must be such that a reasonably prudent person would have foreseen a serious and obvious risk not merely of injury or even of serious
injury but of death’
4) evidence that breach of duty did cause the death of victim
5) the jury’s conclusion that D fell so below standards of reasonable person in that situation that they can be labelled grossly negligent and deserve criminal punishment
Does Adomako determine whether manslaughter by gross negligence can occur as a result too an omission to act?
- yes
- R v Evans
- know of R v Khan, duty of care was unclear but still convicted of manslaughter by omission
Draw a flowchart showing how it determined which type of homicide offence the D is likely to be convicted of.
Draw a flowchart determining whether D is like t o be guilty or not guilty in terms of voluntary and involuntary intoxication.
When does intoxication actually become a defence?
- when you can prove that D didn’t have the intent or mens rea to commit the offence
- won’t apply to negligence or strict liability offences as no mens rea is required
- see R v Kingston where D had been give coffee which he had no idea was spiked, he then indecently assaulted young boy and used the defence that had he not been acting under effect of drugs he wouldn’t have acted in the way he did
- prosecution had to prove he had the mens rea
- they did successfully, so intoxication wasn’t a defence due to mens rea being present
Does intoxication always work as a defence if mens rea is absent?
- depends on whether the intoxication was voluntary or involuntary (involuntary is when D has no knowledge that they took alcohol or drugs e.g spiked or medically prescribed drug with unusual side effects)
- was there basic or specific intent?
- DPP v Majewski states that specific intent is where mens rea requires intention and nothing less e.g murder, s18 assault
- crimes of basic intent can include recklessness as well as intent e.g s47 and 20 of OAPA
So when can voluntary intoxication be a defence?
- only to specific intent crimes
- even if a defendant is successful with their defence of voluntary intoxication to a crime of specific intent, they will usually be guilty of another offence.
- e.g, if the prosecution fails to show that the defendant had the mens rea for murder because of their intoxication, they would still be liable for manslaughter (a crime of basic intent).
- if they successfully avoided a conviction under s 18 of the OAPA 1861, they would be guilty of an assault under s 20 of the OAPA 1861 as this can be established by proof of recklessness as to foresight of some harm by the defendant.
When is there a defence to involuntary intoxication?
- may have defence to any crime as long as there is no mens rea
- R v Hardie
- there are two crucial elements to be established if the defendant is to succeed in arguing involuntary intoxication: first, that the drug was ‘non- dangerous’, and second that the defendant’s reaction was unpredictable and not one that would normally be associated with that particular drug.
What is ‘Dutch courage’?
- Attorney general for Northern Ireland v Gallagher
- the defendant decided to kill his wife and drank most of a bottle of whiskey to give himself ‘Dutch courage’
- it was decided that a defendant could not rely on voluntary intoxication if they had the mens rea for the crime before they started to drink
- for policy reasons this was ruled
Is there a defence for drunken belief in self defence?
- no
- R v O’Grady
- D and V both drank large quantities of alcohol before returning to O’Grady’s flat. During the night a fight ensued and when O’Grady got up in the morning, he found that the victim was dead. O’Grady was charged with murder. There was evidence at trial to suggest that O’Grady had attacked the victim and had done so in the belief that he needed to defend himself. O’Grady was raising the defence of self- defence but his belief in the need to defend himself had been induced by his intoxication.
- it did not matter whether the offence was one of specific or basic intent.
- an intoxicated person whose mistaken belief was induced by drink or drugs has no defence to a charge of manslaughter or murder.
