LAWS1016 Manslaughter

Question 1

Elements of Manslaughter by Unlawful and Dangerous Act

Answer 1

1. Result: death of deceased.
2. Act (not omission) of accused that was (a) unlawful and (b) dangerous.
3. Causation.

Question 2

Test for “Unlawful”

Answer 2

Act must constitute a criminal wrong (i.e. satisfy the AR + MR requirements of the base offence).

(Lamb) pointed and shot revolver at friend as joke, barrel rotated, death, but no MR for assault (-).

Act performed in self-defence is not unlawful [Cornelissen].

Question 3

Test for “Dangerous”

Answer 3

Objective Test: P has to prove BRD that a reasonable person in the position of the accused, would have known that he was exposing others to an appreciable risk of serious injury (Wilson).

Only knowledge of the physical features can be imputed to the reasonable person in the position of the accused; characteristics / idiosyncrasies of the accused, emotional / mental state, level of intoxication (Wils).

Question 4

Is supply of drugs “dangerous”?

Answer 4

Mere supply of meths (as distinct from consumption) was not held to be an act where a reasonable person in the accused’s position would have realized that they were exposing the deceased to an appreciable risk of serious injury.

(Burns) death by meths and another prescription drug.

Question 5

Can supply of drugs “cause” the death?

Answer 5

Death was caused by the consumption of meths, rather than supply. This was a voluntary (i.e. no duress) and informed (i.e. knew that the drug was meths, does not have to know its side effects) act of the deceased, which broke the chain of causation, uncontroversial, should not be left to the jury (Burns).

Question 6

Elements of Manslaughter by Gross Negligence.

Answer 6

1. Result: death of the deceased.
2. D (a) owed a DOC to victim and (b) committed an act / omission in gross breach of that duty.
3. Causation.

Question 7

DOC for Acts

Answer 7

Common law duty not to cause harm to others (Nydam).

Question 8

DOC for omissions

Answer 8

• (BW & SW) parental duty to child: deliberately omitted to seek medical attention for malnourished child.
• doctor duty to patient [Patel]
• employer employee
• (Stone and Dobinson) assumed DOC to care for F based on awareness of her poor condition.
• (TakTak) voluntarily assumed duty to care for another, and so secluded the helpless person as to prevent others from rendering aid: took deceased back to his own home, attempted CPR etc.
• (Burns) Supplier of prohibited drugs does not owe duty to recipient, even if the drugs are taken on the supplier’s premises, because there is no element of control.
• “any person who deliberately puts another in danger comes under a legal duty to remove that danger” [Taber, Barr J]. Not yet determined by courts, however the existence of such a duty is likely since it seems to be consistent with the principle of protection of community.

Question 9

Test for Gross Breach of Duty

Answer 9

1. Whether a reasonable person in the position of the defendant would have appreciated that their act/omission would probably cause death / GBH? (more likely than not).
2. Whether the conduct of the accused was “wickedly negligent”, falling so below the standard of a reasonable person, that it warrants criminal punishment?

Reasonable surgeon with the same skills and competence [Patel]. Cultural background may be relevant, but education and training in homeopathy, submissiveness of wives cannot be imputed into the reasonable person [Sam]. Do not consider accused’s opinion.