Manslaughter Flashcards
Statutory basis for Diminished Responsibility
S.2 Homicide Act (Substituted by s52 Criminal Justice Act)
Statutory basis for loss of self control
S54, 55 Criminal Justice Act
Brown
Letenock
Causal link for loss of self control can be established if the loss of contra arises from a mistake made by D.
Even if this mistake was induced by alcohol
Dawes (causation)
Loss of self control: possible to have regard to the cumulative impact of earlier events to determine if chain of causation remains intact
Dawes (qualifying triggers)
Fear of serious violence: Inciting things done/said as an excuse to use violence:
D must have INTENDED his actions would provide him with this opportunity- general behaviour not bad enough
Qualifying triggers
- Fear of serious violence
- Sense of being seriously wronged by things done and said which constitute circumstances of an extremely grave character, and caused D to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged
Clinton
Qualifying triggers: sense of being seriously wronged, sexual infidelity must be disregarded.
Things ‘said’ which constitute sexual infidelity include admissions or reports by others.
Where sexual infidelity is integral and forms an essential part of a wider context it should be taken into account
Amelash
Qualifying triggers: circumstances that bare on D’s general capacity for tolerance and self-restraint condition
Self- induced intoxication generally not a relevant circumstance- comes under exclusion
Hussain
Reckless MS:
Man driving car, knocked over child, drove off with child trapped, child only died because of being dragged along the road
Could not be murder as man did not foresee causing death/serious injury through his action of driving off.
R v Goodfellow
Components of constructive MS:
- Intentional act
- Unlawful act
- Act which a reasonable person would realise would be bound to subject some other human to the risk of physical harm
- Act was the cause of death
R v Lamb
Constructive MS: The Unlawful act
D must have the mens rea for the unlawful act in question
R v Scarlett
Constructive MS: The Unlawful act
Will not be unlawful if D has a defence to that act
Andrews v DPP
Constructive MS: The Unlawful act
Act in question was careless driving
Could not be an unlawful act for the purpose of MS as there is no intention component
DPP v Newbury and Jones
Constructive MS: The Dangerous act
Must consider whether a sober and reasonable person would recognise that the act was dangerous, not whether the accused did.
Dawson
Ball
Constructive MS: The Dangerous Act
The sober and reasonable person should be considered to only have as much knowledge as if he were at the scene and watched the act be performed
Knowledge that only the D may have can be imputed to the reasonable man
A-G Reference (No 3 of 1994)
Constructive MS: The Dangerous Act
Man stabbed pregnant woman, baby died as a result of premature birth due to mothers wounds
Held it doesn’t matter if the ultimate victim is someone the D did not see, or reasonable person would not foresee, it is the creating of the risk to any person that is the wrongdoing
Kennedy
Constructive MS: The act as the cause of death
D supplied drug but V administered it themselves
V made a free and informed choice to administer drug, therefore chain of causation was broken
Carey
Constructive MS: The act as the cause of death
Confrontation between 2 groups of teenagers. D struck V, who ran away.
Later V collapsed and died of a heart condition which was exacerbated by her fear
Held that while the punch was the dangerous act, it did not cause the death
Dhaliwal
Constructive MS: The act as the cause of death
It is possible to link the use of violence against a vulnerable person to their later suicide where the D causes V to become ill or unstable with a recognised medical condition
Bateman
Gross Negligence MS
The jury must be satisfied that the negligence of the accused went beyond a mere matter of compensation (civil liability) and showed such disregard for the life and safety of others to amount to a crime against the state.
Adomako
Gross Negligence MS
- Must be a breach of a duty of care
- D must have died because of that breach
Only when these factors are made out can the issue be put to the jury to decide whether the negligence was gross enough
Circularity issue: Should involve the jury in the issue of when the criminal law kicks in, as it ought to be for them, as members of the public, to decide when otherwise lawful conduct is so bad that it ought to be a crime
Must follow civil law principles to establish duty of care
Misra and Srivastava, Singh
Gross Negligence MS
Emphasised that in order to make the act criminal there must be a risk of death and nothing less.
Evans
Gross Negligence MS: Duty of Care
Existence of duty is a matter of law to be decided by the trial judge
R v Wacker
Gross Negligence MS: Duty of Care
Even if through the civil law there is no right of action, the criminal law has it’s own public policy, and so therefore it may seek to override the civil law in favour of its own in order to achieve policy objectives
Stone and Dobinson
Gross Negligence MS by Ommission
Anorexic sister moved in with elderly brother and wife, died, were held guilty of MS by giving up taking care of her/ omitting to get outside help
The duty imposed on them have been criticised as being on the very periphery of what is acceptable
Sinclair
Gross Negligence MS by Ommission
S and close friend V went to J’s flat to take drugs. S paid for drugs
V became unconscious, J tried to help by injecting saline solution, then left. S stayed with V but did not call medical assistance. V died.
Found J did not have a duty in relation to V
Suggests that the similar duty in stone arose as sister in law was involved over time
Found S did have a duty in relation to V
Due to long and close relationship
The fact he payed for the drugs constituted a direct contribution to the danger
Diminished responsibility: problems with old law
- Language of the act did not collude with the way doctors looked at abnormality
- Little guidance given to the jury
Diminished responsibility: problems with new law
- defence doesn’t seem to apply to the law of attempt so will be labelled as an attempted murderer in this case- a mislabelling?
- New law makes it harder to doctors and juries to collude to be sympathetic to a defendant- much harsher.
Problems with Provocation
- Structural issues: even the slightest provocation allowed the defence to be put to the jury
- Rooted in a sudden loss of self control, not readily adaptable to slow-burn cases e.g reactions to prolonged domestic abuse
- The concept of the ‘reasonable man’ acquired precedent that distorted it to mean whether behaviour was reasonable for this defendant
Loss of self control: The actual loss
- Subjective test
- Must establish causal link
- Need not arise from human agency
- Loss need not be sudden
Loss of self control: Criticism of the reasonable person requirements
- Likely to produce same result as provocation in many circumstances- only limiting element is qualifying triggers
- Has a very complicated structure- Judicial directions to jury likely to be complicated and difficult to apply.
- Sexual infidelity is relevant at this stage
Makes previous exclusion less effective- will be taken into account at some point anyway?
Reckless MS: Reform Suggestions
Law Commission has proposed the merging of reckless MS with gross negligence MS
Rationale: Where one acts in the knowledge that he is taking an unjustifiable risk of death this can be regarded as grossly negligent
Harvey
Constructive MS criticism: Overly harsh?
D threw TV remote at V after an argument. V had an unknown weakness in her artery from which she could have died at any minute, and this caused the minor battery of her being hit by the TV remote to be the immediate cause of her death.
D was found guilty of manslaughter and was given 21 months in prison (out of a max life)- vastly more than the max sentence for actual battery (6 months)
Constructive MS: reform proposals
2000: Law commission proposed involuntary manslaughter should be abolished
2006: Suggestion of a modification of the law to restrict constructive MS to acts intended to cause some sort of injury or recklessness as to a serious injury
Gross Negligence MS: Reform proposals
1996: Law Commission suggested renaming the offence ‘killing by gross carelessness’
Sought to introduce extra criteria in order to mark a clearer divide between criminal and civil liability
Included objective test that risk of death or serious injury would be obvious to a reasonable person reasonable person, the fact that D must be capable of appreciating the relevant risk, that the conduct falls far below what could be reasonably expected of him
2006: Law Commission kept name of the offence
Reduced reasonable person test- only risk of death needs to be obvious
Still not accepted
