INVOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER - FATAL OFFENCE (paper 1) Flashcards
1
Q
Types of involuntary manslaughter
A
- unlawful act (constructive) manslaughter
- gross negligence manslaughter
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)
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
14
Q
element 3 - causation
A
- causation must be established
- D must factually and legally caused V’s death
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.
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
element 2 - breach of duty
- 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
R v Adomako
- 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
breach of duty by omissions
- 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
element 3 - causation
- GNM is a result crime
- causation must be established
- factual (but for test) and legal (operative cause, unbroken chain, thin skull rule)
29
element 4 - gross negligence
- 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
R v Misra and another (2004/5)
- 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
R v Rudling
- 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
case of Rose
- D was an optometrist + failed to diagnose fluid in the brain in a routine operation + 8 year old died
- conviction quashed on appeal
