Manslaughter Flashcards
Unlawful Act Manslaughter
Definiton
R v Bristow = an unlawful act intentionally performed in circumstances rendering it dangerous causing death
Unlawful Act Manslaughter = act
An unlawful act intentional performed
- Not just a civil wrong or mere negligence [R v Franklin + R v Andrews]
- it cannot be mere negligence [R v Andrews] in R v Meeking the offence was one of negligence as well as intention, but her conviction was upheld as the court said that if the case had been one of GNM, she would have been found guilty anyway
- The act [the base offence] must be a full crime - In R v Lamb there was no assault as no apprehension so as no intention, no MR, so no base offence, so no UAM
- This was confirmed in Kennedy [self-administering heroin case], and upheld in R v Auriol Grey [cyclist shouted at, so she fell off her bike and died]
- An act, not an omission [R v Lowe]
Unlawful Act Manslaughter = direction + unlawful
Need not be directed at V
- R v Mitchell = D punches an old man who falls on an elderly lady who dies
- AG’s Ref (No.3 of 1994) = D stabs pregnant girlfriend, foetus dies later, base offence s.20 GBH, despite no intention there was ‘some harm’
- R v Dhaliwal = left open whether behaviour causing a recognised psychiatric injury, and then suicide, could potentially be UAM
Unlawful = Prosecution must disprove any defences - R v Lipman: self-induced intoxication is not a defence to battery as the MR is recklessness
Unlawful Act Manslaughter = dangerous
In circumstances rendering it dangerous =
- R v Church: all sober and reasonable people would inevitably recognise the risk of some harm resulting, albeit not serious harm
- So, it is an objective test, but the defendant and the reasonable person must have the same knowledge = R v Dawson
- But the reasonable person can take into account knowledge gained by D during offence = R v Watson
- However, D’s own belief as to the situation is irrelevant = R v Ball: [believed blanks, kept with live]
- R v Carey = D did not know that V had an unkown heart disease, so neither can the reasonable person
- Vs. You can convict if at risk of some harm = R v JM and SM
- The type of crime is not determinative of whether it was dangerous, but the circumstances = R v Bristow, Dunn & Daley: burglary on a singular track, so likely to see someone
Causing death = ordinary rules of causation [factual + legal]
Gross Negligence Manslaughter
DEFINITION
R v Adomako =
1. D owed V an existing duty of care;
2. D negligently breached that duty of care;
3. It was reasonably foreseeable that the breach of that duty gave rise to an obvious and serious risk of death;
4. The breach caused the death of V;
5. The circumstances of the breach were truly exceptionally bad and so reprehensible that it amounted to gross negligence and required criminal sanction
= R v Adomako = anaesthetist
+ This was confirmed in R v Rose [Honey]
Gross Negligence Manslaughter = duty
Duty of care =
- R v Gemma Evans = the judges decides what is a matter of law, and the jury decides based on the facts + the moment that the situation becomes life-threatening, and D knows it or ought to know, is when the duty arises
- Other duties include Doctor / patient, Parent / child [Proktar case on omissions], Contract of Employment [R v Pittwood]
Breach of duty = Act or Omission
Gross Negligence Manslaughter = foreseeable + risk
Reasonably foreseeable that the breach would give rise to an obvious and serious risk of death
- Serious and obvious risk = R v Rudling [rare disease, not calling ambulance, reason for conviction, not that the doctor didn’t diagnose the disease]
- not just of injury or serious injury = R v Singh, R v Misra, R v Gemma Evans [when D knows or ought to have known]
- Risk of death must exist at the time of the breach = R v Rose: optometrist, claimed she looked at the wrong images, it must be obvious rather it might reveal something life-threatening + when assessing the grossness of the conduct the court cannot look at what would, should, or could, have been available to D
- It is whether a reasonable person would have foreseen the serious and obvious risk = R v Kuddus [manager didn’t tell chef of allergy]
Gross Negligence Manslaughter = death + gross
The breach must cause the death of V
- R v Sellu = not might have
- R v Broughton = 95% chance still not certain
Gross
- R v Bateman = so gross that it deserves punishment
- R v Adomako = so bad in the circumstances that it should be a crime
- R v Misra = the question for the jury is whether it was so gross and consequently a crime
- R v Sellu = the judge must direct just how gross it is – it must be emphasised just how bad the negligence must be, but no mandatory wording
Essay Questions
Advantages and Disadvantages of manslaughter
- GNM is too high of a standard, it is very hard to prove as you need a serious and obvious reasonable foreseeability, [R v Kuddus] and so gross that it should be a crime [Adomako]
- The worse the breach the less likely it would have been foreseen in GNM [vs. reasonable person]
