Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Criminal Law > Manslaughter > Flashcards

Manslaughter Flashcards

1
Q

Types of manslaughter

A
  • Unlawful Act Manslaughter
  • Reckless Act Manslaughter
  • Gross Negligence Manslaughter
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Unlawful Act Manslaughter

A

The defendant is carrying out an unlawful act that is likely to cause some injury to another person

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Gross Negligence Manslaughter

A

The defendant is conducting a lawful activity but being negligent

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Reckless Manslaughter

A

The defendant consciously thinks about the risk of harm but goes ahead with it anyway.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Definition of UAM

A

DPP v Newbury and Jones

  • where the defendant intentionally commits an act which is
  • unlawful
  • dangerous and
  • causes the death of the victim.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

The act must be intentional

A
  • 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)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

It must be a positive act, not an omission

A

R v Lowe

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

UAM cannot be based on negligence, it must be a criminal act

A

Andrews v DPP

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

The act must be unlawful

A

It must be a crime, not just a tort (R v Franklin)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

All AR and MR elements of the unlawful act must be made out

A

R v Lamb

- the same defence to that crime apply (R v Scarlett)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

the unlawful act can be one of strict liability

A

R v Andrews

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

The crime need not be aimed at the ultimate victim

A

R v Larkin

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

The act must be dangerous

A

The act will be dangerous if the ‘reasonable man’ foresees the risk of some harm, not necessarily the risk of serious harm.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

The dangerous act requires that D foresaw that physical harm might occur

A

R v Dawson

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

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

A

Dawson - heart attack (not known)

Watson - frail old man (known)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

It would not be recognised by the sober and reasonable bystander that an apparently 15 yo girl was going to suffer shock

A

Dyson LJ in Carey

- Physical harm in the form of shock would be left to the jury (J v JM and SM)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

All that that the prosecution need to show in UAM

A
  • the MR of the criminal act
  • D had foreseen the consequences of the criminal act
    R v JF and NE
18
Q

The act must cause the death

A

Lord Lay in Goodfellow

- it’s not about a direct act i.e. no NAI between the unlawful act and the death

19
Q

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

A

Wallace

20
Q

A Novus Actus Interveniens must be

A

a free, deliberate and informed act

21
Q

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.

A

Att-Gen Ref 1994

22
Q

Where d supplies V with heroin

A

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

23
Q

The AR for s. 23 OAP

A

administering or causing the administration of another to take poisonous or noxious substances
i.e. injecting someone with heroin would be administering a poison.

24
Q

Supplying heroin, where the V injects himslef

A

R v Kennedy No.2

Supplying drugs to someone who later dies is not involuntary manslaughter.

25
Q

Where the D helps V to ‘raise a vein’ - joint administration

A 
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)
26
Q

Gross Negligence Manslaughter requirements:

A

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
27
Q

Owing a duty of care to V

A
  • normal rules of negligence apply (R v Adomako)
  • ex turpi does not apply (R v Wacker)
  • liability for omission as well as comission
28
Q

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.

A

R v Rose

29
Q

Giving peanuts to a restaurant customer with an allergy was a breach of duty that caused death

A

Zaman

30
Q

Stepping back and watching a girl drown, then going to a bar and not calling the police immediately was a breach of duty.

A

Bowditch

31
Q

‘Gross’ negligence manslaughter

A

negligence to such a degree that it amounts to a crime against the state and deserving of punishment (Bateman)

32
Q

Incompetent anaesthetist killing a patent accidentally was GNM

A

Adomake

33
Q

Patient dying from poor post-operative care was GNM

A

Misra and Srivastava

34
Q

Landlord failing to fix a known carbon monoxide leak and his tenant dying was GNM

A

Singh

35
Q

To amount to GNM in a medical context, the risk of death must be serious and obvious

A

not merely a remote possibility

R v Rudling

36
Q

Several acts can cumulatively constitute one act of gross negligence

A

Litchfield

37
Q

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.

A

R v Sellu

38
Q

D will be liable where he has personal responsibility, even if others are responsible

A

R v Singh

39
Q

Reckless Manslaughter

A

If there is a high probability of death or serious injury (Hyams v DPP)

40
Q

Dragging the V behind a car when they were half in was deemed reckless as there was an awareness of the risk

A

Lidar

Criminal Law (7 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2025 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions