Invountary manslaughter

Question 1

Unlawful dangerous act (constructive) manslaughter, three elements:

Answer 1

1. Was the defendant’s act unlawful?
2. Was the unlawful act dangerous?
3. Did the unlawful and dangerous act cause death?

Question 2

Unlawful act, case:

Answer 2

Must be a complete criminal offence, actus reus and mens rea must be established.

R v Lamb
Facts: defendant pointed gun at his friend as a joke, knew it contained bullets but not live. Pulled trigger as joke, friend died. Defendant’s conviction quashed on basis that actions did not amount to a criminal offence.
Principle: UDA manslaughter requires a criminally unlawful act. Unlawful act more frequently an offence against the person.

Question 3

Dangerousness, case:

Answer 3

R v Church
Facts: defendant knocked victim unconscious. Thought was dead, pushed her body in river where she drowned.
Principle: not enough that unlawful act caused death. The unlawful act must be one that ‘all sober and reasonable people would inevitably recognise must subject the other person to some risk of harm.’ Didn’t know would subject to harm, avoided liability.

R v Newbury and Jones
Facts: defendants threw slab from bridge on train, killed guard. Did not appreciate carried a risk of harm.
Principle: provided does an act that is both unlawful and dangerous, need not recognise the dangerousness.

Question 4

Gross negligence manslaughter

Answer 4

Based not on criminal wrongdoing but on negligence. Offence established if the defendant has been so negligent that criminal liability is appropriate.

• duty towards victim?
• defendant in breach of duty?
• breach of duty cause death?
• should conduct be characterised as criminal?

Question 5

Duty of care, two ways:

Answer 5

• Duty of care: based on ‘ordinary’ principles of negligence;
• Duty to act: a person is liable for failure to act only if he had a duty to do so.

Question 6

Breach of duty, considerations for the two ways:

Answer 6

• Duty of care: breached by poor performance of duty. Evaluate what the defendant did and whether this fell short of what was expected (Adomako).
• Duty to act: breached by failure to act. Establish that the defendant has a duty to act and that he failed to do so.

Question 7

R v Adomako [1995]

Answer 7

Facts: the defendant, an anaesthetist, failed to notice patient’s oxygen supply had become disconnected, died.
Principle: defendant’s conduct must have ‘departed from the proper standard of care incumbent upon him.’ Where a person professes a special skill or knowledge, conduct will be judge against the reasonable competent professional in the field.

Question 8

Can omission suffice for UDA manslaughter?

Answer 8

No, R v Lowe