Manslaughter Flashcards
Types of manslaughter
- Unlawful Act Manslaughter
- Reckless Act Manslaughter
- Gross Negligence Manslaughter
Unlawful Act Manslaughter
The defendant is carrying out an unlawful act that is likely to cause some injury to another person
Gross Negligence Manslaughter
The defendant is conducting a lawful activity but being negligent
Reckless Manslaughter
The defendant consciously thinks about the risk of harm but goes ahead with it anyway.
Definition of UAM
DPP v Newbury and Jones
- where the defendant intentionally commits an act which is
- unlawful
- dangerous and
- causes the death of the victim.
The act must be intentional
- intention to do the act itself, not cause the outcome
- must be a positive act, not an omission (R v Lowe)
- Cannot be based on negligence, must be a criminal act (Andrews v DPP)
It must be a positive act, not an omission
R v Lowe
UAM cannot be based on negligence, it must be a criminal act
Andrews v DPP
The act must be unlawful
It must be a crime, not just a tort (R v Franklin)
All AR and MR elements of the unlawful act must be made out
R v Lamb
- the same defence to that crime apply (R v Scarlett)
the unlawful act can be one of strict liability
R v Andrews
The crime need not be aimed at the ultimate victim
R v Larkin
The act must be dangerous
The act will be dangerous if the ‘reasonable man’ foresees the risk of some harm, not necessarily the risk of serious harm.
The dangerous act requires that D foresaw that physical harm might occur
R v Dawson
The jury will take into account facts that make the act dangerous that are known to the defendant or would be obvious to the reasonable person
Dawson - heart attack (not known)
Watson - frail old man (known)
It would not be recognised by the sober and reasonable bystander that an apparently 15 yo girl was going to suffer shock
Dyson LJ in Carey
- Physical harm in the form of shock would be left to the jury (J v JM and SM)
All that that the prosecution need to show in UAM
- the MR of the criminal act
- D had foreseen the consequences of the criminal act
R v JF and NE
The act must cause the death
Lord Lay in Goodfellow
- it’s not about a direct act i.e. no NAI between the unlawful act and the death
A victim ending their own life as a result of D’s action is a free and unfettered violation unless it is in the range of reasonably foreseeable responses
Wallace
A Novus Actus Interveniens must be
a free, deliberate and informed act
A pregnant mother was stabbed and the baby dies 180 days later. It was found that the D’s actions caused the death of the baby.
Att-Gen Ref 1994
Where d supplies V with heroin
The unlawful act is s. 23 Offences against the Person Act 1861 - administering poison so as to endanger life.
NOT
Misuse of Drugs act 1971 - supply of a controlled drug R v Kennedy
The AR for s. 23 OAP
administering or causing the administration of another to take poisonous or noxious substances
i.e. injecting someone with heroin would be administering a poison.
Supplying heroin, where the V injects himslef
R v Kennedy No.2
Supplying drugs to someone who later dies is not involuntary manslaughter.
Where the D helps V to ‘raise a vein’ - joint administration
Depends of the degree of assistance R v Byram - liability for joint administration R v Evans - not liable for UAM (but was liable for GNM for not calling an ambulance)
Gross Negligence Manslaughter requirements:
R v Rose:
- D must owe a duty of care
- must have breached that duty
- risk of death was reasonably foreseeable from the breach
- the breach must have caused V’s death
- that breach must amount to gross negligence
Owing a duty of care to V
- normal rules of negligence apply (R v Adomako)
- ex turpi does not apply (R v Wacker)
- liability for omission as well as comission
Regarding reasonable foreseeability: The court is not allowed to take into account information that would have only been available following a breach of duty only information that is available at the time.
R v Rose
Giving peanuts to a restaurant customer with an allergy was a breach of duty that caused death
Zaman
Stepping back and watching a girl drown, then going to a bar and not calling the police immediately was a breach of duty.
Bowditch
‘Gross’ negligence manslaughter
negligence to such a degree that it amounts to a crime against the state and deserving of punishment (Bateman)
Incompetent anaesthetist killing a patent accidentally was GNM
Adomake
Patient dying from poor post-operative care was GNM
Misra and Srivastava
Landlord failing to fix a known carbon monoxide leak and his tenant dying was GNM
Singh
To amount to GNM in a medical context, the risk of death must be serious and obvious
not merely a remote possibility
R v Rudling
Several acts can cumulatively constitute one act of gross negligence
Litchfield
Expert evidence can assist the jury in reaching a decision in GNM, but whether the negligence amounts to gross is a question for the jury.
R v Sellu
D will be liable where he has personal responsibility, even if others are responsible
R v Singh
Reckless Manslaughter
If there is a high probability of death or serious injury (Hyams v DPP)
Dragging the V behind a car when they were half in was deemed reckless as there was an awareness of the risk
Lidar
