More

Question 1

R v Lowe

Answer 1

Must be an act cannot be an omission

Question 2

R v Church

Answer 2

Danger can only be a risk of some or serious harm

Objective test

Question 3

R v Newbury and Jones

Answer 3

D need not foresee of any harm

Question 4

R v Lamb

Answer 4

If no unlawful act there is no unlawful act manslaughter

Question 5

R v Rose

Answer 5

Obvious is more than a mere possibility that the action might be life threatening

Question 6

R v Rudling

Answer 6

Serious isn’t the same as inability to eliminate a possibility

Question 7

R v Bateman

Answer 7

Showing such disregard for the life and safety of others to go beyond mere compensation and amount to a crime

Question 8

Robinson v Yorkshire police

Answer 8

Caparo test should only be applied when no existing case law

Question 9

Caparo v Dickman

Answer 9

-3 part test testing:
Proximity
Reasonably foreseeable
Need to be fair just reasonable

Question 10

R v Adomanko

Answer 10

Did D owe civil duty of care to the victim
Did d breach that duty of care
Did the breach of the duty of care cause death
Was d grossly negligent

Question 11

R v Broughton

Answer 11

Same points as R v Adomanko

It needed to be foreseeable that as a result of breach there is a serious as obvious risk of death