INVOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER - FATAL OFFENCE (paper 1) Flashcards

1
Q

Types of involuntary manslaughter

A
  • unlawful act (constructive) manslaughter
  • gross negligence manslaughter
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

what are the 4 main requirements for unlawful act manslaughter?

A

(1) unlawful act
(2) dangerous act
(3) caused death
(4) MR (of unlawful act but doesn’t need to foresee harm)

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

element 1 - there must be an unlawful act

A
  • D must have committed an unlawful act and have the MR for the unlawful act
  • must be a criminal act (not a civil wrong) Franklin (1883)
  • The unlawful act must be a positive act (not an omission) R v Lowe
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

key case - Franklin (1883)

A
  • D threw large box from pier and hit and killed a swimmer
  • D’s act was a civil wrong doing not a criminal act
  • for UAM the D must have committed a criminal act
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

key case - Lowe (1973)

A
  • D was convicted of neglecting his baby, he failed to call a doctor for his 9 week old baby girl who was unwell
  • conviction of UAM was quashed
  • case made it clear that for UAM D must have committed a positive act not an omission
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

key case - Lamb (1967)

A
  • D and his friend V were fooling around with a revolver, thought the next chamber was empty
  • D pulled the tigger, killing V
  • conviction was quashed, as he didn’t have the AR for a common law assault as V did not fear an assault
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

element 2 - unlawful act must be dangerous

A
  • jury will apply the objective test and decide if its dangerous (R v Church)
  • must be a risk of some harm, R v Watson showed how shock/fear may be sufficient enough
  • act doesn’t have to be aimed at the victim
  • don’t have to foresee harm of others and the act can be harm to property
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

key case - church (1956)

A
  • confirmed that an objective test should be applied if D’s conduct was dangerous
  • confirmed there must be a risk of some harm
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

key case - Newbury & Jones (1977)

A
  • two teenagers pushed concrete slab at train, killing a train guard
  • at trial convicted of manslaughter, appealed on ground that they didn’t foresee that their act would cause the harm
  • HOL stated that its not necessary for D to have foreseen harm to be convicted of manslaughter
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

key case - Goodfellow (1986)

A
  • D set fire to his own house and killed 3 people in family
  • he didn’t intend to kill these people, purpose was damage to property so they’d be rehoused by council
  • conviction upheld - unlawful act can be against property
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

what must the unlawful act do to be considered dangerous?

A
  • be sufficient enough to cause some actual physical harm
  • emotional fear or distress is not enough on its own
  • shock causing physical injury will be enough
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

key case - Dawson (1985)

A
  • D attempted to rob a petrol station with a fake gun, V aged 60 had severe heart condition and died
  • D’s manslaughter was quashed as he didn’t know about D’s weak heart and therefore not objectively dangerous under the church test
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

key case - Mitchell (1983)

A
  • D hit a man in a queue, the blow caused the man to fall on elderly lady (89) and she died
  • D’s act was objectively dangerous and is sufficient for UAM
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

element 3 - causation

A
  • causation must be established
  • D must factually and legally caused V’s death
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

self administration of drugs breaks the chain of causation where V is an adult of sound mind - cases

A
  • Cato (1976) - prepared heroin syringes and injected each other. V died and D was convicted of UAM
  • Dalby (1982) - HL confirmed tat a manslaughter cannot be based on supply alone. it has to be administers.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

element 4 - Men’s Rea

A
  • D must have the required MR of the original unlawful act
  • the prosecution does not have to prove that D foresaw any harm from his/her unlawful act. there is no subjective test
  • R v Newbury and Jones (1976)
17
Q

Gross negligence manslaughter

A
  • type of involuntary manslaughter
  • offence where D owes V a DOC, breaches it in such a grossly negligent way, there is a clear risk of death and causes V’s death
18
Q

source of GNM

A
  • common law
  • judge-made law
  • definition in the case of Adomako, which set out 4 key elements
  • case if Singh and Misra confirmed their must be risk of death
19
Q

Definition of GNM

A
  • definition in Adomako ]- 4 key elements;
    (1) D owes V a DOC
    (2) D breaches the DOC
    (3) causes death
    (4) D’s negligence is so gross that the jury believe it is criminal rather than civil wrongdoing and is deserving of sanctions
20
Q

element 1 - duty of care

A
  • D must owe V a duty of care
  • same meaning as in civil law
  • Donoghue v Stevenson 1932 gave us the ‘neighbourhood principle’
  • GNM can be an act or omission
  • Duty is decided - (1) using any existing precedents (2) novel/new situations, the 3 part Caparo test will be decided if D owes V a DOC
21
Q

R v Singh (1999)

A
  • D was a landlord of a rental property which has a faulty gas fire and his tenants were killed by carbon monoxide
  • D owed a DOC as the landlord
  • guilty of GNM
22
Q

R v Litchfield (1998)

A
  • D was master of a sailing ship, it ran onto coast and killed 14 people
  • D owed V’s a DOC as master and sailing on
  • he had breached DOC
23
Q

R v wacker (2003)

A
  • D was driving a lorry with 60 immigrants, 58 were dead as he had closed the only ventilation for 5 hours
  • convicted of manslaughter x 58
  • he appealed saying he didn’t owe a DOC as it was a criminal act
  • didn’t apply in crim law and he did owe a DOC
24
Q

R v Evans (2009)

A
  • D obtained heroin for her 16 year old sister, she took it, overdosed and collapsed but D failed to call for help
  • D was convicted of GNM
  • owed DOC because of the dangerous situation she had created
  • found guilty of GNM
25
Q

element 2 - breach of duty

A
  • must be a breach of duty
  • an objective test is applied
  • D’s conduct must be less than expected of a sober and reasonable person
  • breach can be a positive act or omission
26
Q

R v Adomako

A
  • HL said D’s conduct must gave departed from the proper standard incumbent on them
  • they will be judged against a reasonable person
  • if they have a special skill they will be judged against a person reasonable in their field
  • leaner drivers will be judged against a competent driver (Nettleship v Weston - 1971)
27
Q

breach of duty by omissions

A
  • breach can be by a positive act/omission
  • R v Pitwood - failed to do job (close railway crossing)
  • R v Stone & Dobinson - owed a DOC to fanny
  • R v Evans - DOC as created a dangerous situation
  • R v Adomako - failed to notice V’s oxygen tube became detached - guilty of GNM
28
Q

element 3 - causation

A
  • GNM is a result crime
  • causation must be established
  • factual (but for test) and legal (operative cause, unbroken chain, thin skull rule)
29
Q

element 4 - gross negligence

A
  • been position in English law since 1880’s R v Doherty (1887)
  • must be ‘goss negligence’ for the act to be a criminal offence. R v Adomako made this clear
  • in Broughton the CA made it clear the breach had to e exceptionally bad and reprehensible
30
Q

R v Misra and another (2004/5)

A
  • D and another were senior house officers at Southampton hospital
  • they were in charge of a young man who had knee surgery + failed to notice infection, which he died from
  • found guilty of GNM
31
Q

R v Rudling

A
  • 12 year old died of autoimmune disease
  • prosecuted for GNM for failing to diagnose & treat
  • not guilty of GNM as judge ruled no evidence that the negligence was gross
32
Q

case of Rose

A
  • D was an optometrist + failed to diagnose fluid in the brain in a routine operation + 8 year old died
  • conviction quashed on appeal