Manslaughter Flashcards
Voluntary Manslaughter
D would be guilty of murder but has successfully raised a partial defence
Three partial defences:
1) loss of control
2) diminished responsibility
3) suicide pact
Involuntary manslaughter
D lacks the mens rea for murder but has committed the actus reus for it - 2 types: 1) constructive (unlawful act) manslaughter or gross negligence manslaughter
Important changes from provocation to Loss of control
Sexual infidelity alone does not constitute a qualifying trigger
removal requirement for loss of control to be sudden and temporary
addition of qualifying trigger of fear of serious violence
Loss of control
(s54-56 Coroner and Justice Act 2009)
Replaced common law of provocation
requirements: (s54)
(a)D’s acts and omissions in doing or being a party to the killing resulted from D’s loss of self-control,
(b)the loss of self-control had a qualifying trigger, and
(c)a person of D’s sex and age, with a normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint and in the circumstances of D, might have reacted in the same or in a similar way to D.
2 Qualifying triggers defined (s55)
1)D’s fear of serious violence from V against D or another identified person. OR
2) a thing or things done and/or said which—
(a)constituted circumstances of an extremely grave character, and
(b)caused D to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged.
(Ahluwalia [1992] 4 All ER 889)
OLD LAW CASE
tried under law of provocation
D had entered an arranged marriage - suffered many yrs of abuse + violence from husband since start of marriage - one eve H threatens to beat her next morning - she pours petrol on him whilst he sleeps - lit it on fire - he dies from burns
convicted of murder - knocked down to manslaughter but on DR - Not Provocation - she had ‘battered woman syndrome’
the loss of control needed for provocation must be sudden and temporary - OLD LAW
Also establishes basis that Battered woman syndrome is relevant for DR defence
- Clinton [2012] EWCA Crim 2
NEW law under loss of control
D’s wife admits to D she was having an affair- D confesses to her he is contemplating suicide - She taunts ‘you’ve not got the bollocks to do it’- he beats her to death with bat and strangles her
Conviction of murder - on appeal retrial ordered as judge erred in direction
found that Sexual infidelity can be the context for a qualifying trigger under LoC defence
possible that the taunting from wife could constitute a qualifying trigger
Asmelash [2013] 1 Cr App R 33
D stabbed V to death in course of argument – had already spent the day together consuming alcohol – raises defence of LoC – V made him so angry he could not control himself – accepted that he was not so drunk he didn’t know what he was doing – deliberate choice to swing the knife to protect himself- convicted of murder - upheld on appeal
Voluntary intoxication by D is not relevant to loss of control defence and its circumstances
Lord Judge CJ - under prov law - judicial directions referred to a reasonably sober person - new statute should apply similarly
BUT diff if D suffers severe drig/acohol problem and was severely taunted - if to extent taunts are qualifying trigger
Diminished responsibility
s52 CJA 2009
Can be provided:
if D was suffering from an abnormality of mental functioning which—
(a)arose from a recognised medical condition,
(b)substantially impaired D’s ability
(1)to understand the nature of D’s conduct, or
(2)to form a rational judgment, or
(3)to exercise self-control.
[can be one or more of these^]
(c)provides an explanation for D’s acts and omissions in doing or being a party to the killing.
- Dowds [2012] EWCA Crim 281
D is drinking heavily with his partner one night - he stabs her 60 times - mainly neck area - severs carotid artery
Convicted of murder - upheld on appeal
Voluntary intoxication does not provide grounds for DR - not in scope of ‘recognised medical conditions’
- Golds [2014] EWCA Crim 748
D admits to killing his partner (C) - they had been at family BBQ - C unhappy + drinking - tells No. of people including her brother+ sister that D had been hitting her – mark on her face she claimed D was responsible for – C wants to stay and D wants to leave – get into an argument – they return home separately – argument continues- lots of the evidence given by R – deceased’s son – D stabs C with a knife
Convicted of murder and upheld on appeal
Substantial for the purposes of s2(1)(b) Homicide act - replaced by s2(1) CJA - means significant or important - NOT more than just trivial
But Judges not to direct jury on it’s definition unless clarification needed - normally just takes its ordinary meaning
Constructive/ Unlawful Act Manslaughter
Requirements set out by Lord Hope in * A-G’s Ref (No 3 of 1994) [1997] 3 All ER 936
1) D’s act must be voluntary (intended) and not accidental
2) There must be an unlawful act
3) Act must be objectively dangerous and shown that it may cause injury (or death) to V
4) The unlawful and dangerous act must cause the death of the victim
- Lamb [1967] 2 QB 981
D in jest + with no intention to harm pulls a revolver on his friend – who equally was treating incident as a joke- it had 2 bullets in chamber – neither opposite the barrel – not intending to fire the gun – D pulls the trigger – his friend is killed
Convicted of constructive manslaughter - conviction quashed on appeal - intent for assault not proven
For unlawful act manslaughter - the unlawful act must constitute an offence on its own - meaning that offences mens rea must be proven
A reasonable mistake can vitiate intent
** Newbury [1977] AC 500
Ds are 2 15 yr old boys - they push a large stone a workmen had left off a bridge onto train tracks - breaks roof of oncoming train and hits guard- killing him
Conviction of Unlawful act manslaughter upheld on appeal from Ds
Held that the test for if the act was dangerous is purely objective
– it depends on whether a reasonable and sober person would recognise the danger/harm to another – actual foresight of D is irrelevant
Lord Salmon - ‘test is not did accused recognise that it was dangerous but would all sober and reasonable people recognise it’s danger’
Gross Negligence Manslaughter
Test for it requires proof of
1) Duty of care (DOC)
2) Breach of that DOC
3) Reasonably foreseeable that breach would create serious + obvious risk of death
4) Breach of DOC caused death
5) Breach of DOC was so gross to justify criminal conviction
** Adomako [1994| 2 All ER 79
D is anaesthetist and was acting as one during an operation, which involved paralysing the patient. During the op a tube becomes disconnected from the ventilator – D does not notice - patient suffers cardiac arrest and dies
Conviction of GN manslaughter upheld after appeals to CA and H o L by D
The test for GN manslaughter is that D must
A) owe a duty of care to the victim
B) breach that duty of care
C) that the breach had caused or been a substantial cause of the V’s death
D) the breach had been gross enough to be criminal and E) there must be a risk of death from the accused’s acts to establish a conviction
When directing a jury a trial judge can direct them to consider if D was reckless in the normal sense of the word – but inappropriate to give a full legal definition of the word
** Rose [2017] EWCA Crim 1168,
D is a registered optometrist- she owed a statutory duty of care to her patient to examine internal eye structure, when carrying out a routine eye examination, to detect any signs of abnormality or disease – including life-threatening problems – evident from the optic nerve. She carries out a sight test on a 7yr old boy and reports no concerns- 5 months later he is taken ill and dies – The cause of death was an acute hydrocephalus which would have been discovered had the defendant examined the back of the boy’s eyes and would have been treatable by surgical intervention- when D had done the test she had mistakenly viewed images of scans from the previous yr
Conviction of GN manslaughter quashed on appeal - no obvious risk of death at point of breach
when we determine if one is liable for GN manslaughter, we must consider whether the risk of death is reasonably foreseeable to D given their knowledge at the time, not taking into account the knowledge they would have had available to them, had they not breached their duty
This case means that medical professionals who fail to do their job by not carrying out tests/looking at scans may be acquitted - whereas those do these things but then do not act on it are liable and can be convicted
