Manslaughter - Main Cases Flashcards
R v Lamb
for unlawful act manslaughter, there must be an unlawful act
- here no assault could be proven so conviction was quashed
DPP v Andrew
unlawful act for manslaughter must not be a crime of negligence - it has to be a positive act
- must be intention or at least reckless
DPP v Newbury
whether the act was dangerous is a purely objective test
R v Dawson
40yr old - wouldn’t suspect he would die of shock so not “dangerous”
R v Church
dangerousness test - if a “sober and reasonable” person would recognise risk of “some harm” resulting, to is dangerous
R v Watson
old man, would suspect he is frail and frightened
R v Carey et all
17yr old; bystander would not suspect harm
R v JM and SM
some harm requirement, bouncer, would suspect harm
R v Admomoko [1995]
1) D owed a duty of care not to harm or a duty of care to assist another person
2) D did (or failed to do) something in breach of that duty
3) The breach of duty created an obvious risk of death (D did not himself have to foresee this possibility)
4) Breach of duty caused V’s death
5) D’s negligence was so gross as to merit criminal liability
R v Sinclair, Johnson and Smith
‘i love that guy!’ - close personal friendship = duty of care
R v Evans (CLOSE PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP)
drugs, not duty because sisters, but because she created/contributed to the dangerous situation and you know or ought reasonably to know that it has become life threatening = duty of care
R v Evans (D has himself accidentally or otherwise caused the danger to V)
if you caused the dangerous situation you are under a duty to remedy it
R v Pitwood
D has undertaken responsibility to safeguard a person or a certain group of people (i.e. in his profession) - in charge of railway crossing, duty to take care and stop cars but he didn’t
R v Singh
in charge of the welfare of tenants, duty of care
he undertook a duty of care so he owes the duty
R v Stone and Dobinson
started caring so owes a duty of care
R v Sinclair, Johnson and Smith
half hearted acts of assistance is not duty of care
R v Evans
for V to understand D has undertaken responsibility for him and relies on that undertaking, V doesn’t have to be informed, just aware
R v Wacker
doesn’t matter that V was happy to be neglected
R v Misra
routine operation, risk of injury and dying is very low - not obvious that the breach of duty was an obvious cause of death
R v Misra (point 5 of admomoko)
uncertain scope does not violate art.7 of ECHR
R v D
battered wife, can do husband for unlawful act or gross negligence
R v Church
last act lacked mens rea because thought she was dead; held that it is viewed as one long sequence as long as the sequence can be connected - just needs mens rea at some point
R v Le Brun
same as in Church -
- if he was repenting when dragging her back in then chain of events is broken but otherwise mens rea satisfies
