Murder + Involuntary Manslaughter (UAM + GNM) + Reckless Manslaughter Flashcards
AR of murder
(i) unlawful (ii) killing of another (iii) person in (iv) the King’s peace
what type of crime/offence is murder (2)
-result crime; D’s act/omission must take place in specific circs (ie King’s peace ) and results in V’s death
-constructive liability offence (D’s liability constructed upon lesser MR (GBH))
how is AR conduct element satisfied
by any conduct that causes V’s death, type of conduct is irrelevant
name 3 cases and their legal principles regarding (iii) a person
R v Poulton; foetuses cant be murdered, must be born alive
R v Senior; murder if born alive but dies of prior injuries
AG’s Ref (No.3 1994); no transferred malice of intent to harm mother of foetus
what happened/ is the legal principle of R v Poulton
foetuses cannot be murdered, must be born alive
what happened/ is the legal principle of R v Senior
murder if born alive but dies of prior injuries
what happened/ is the legal principle of murder if born alive but dies of prior injuries
AG’s Ref (No.3 1994)
no transferred malice of intent to harm mother of foetus
give 3 cases/ legal principles regarding the definition of death
Re: A (a minor); medical definition of death
R v Malcherek & Steel; confirms Re: A (a minor) + brain death = death
R v Bland; ppl in permanent vegetative states and comas = alive
what happened/ is the legal principle in Re: A (a minor)
death = medical definition of death
what happened/ is the legal principle of R v Malcherek & Steel
-confirms Re: A (a minor) -brain death = death
what happened/ is the legal principle of R v Bland
ppl in permanent vegetative states and comas = alive
when should (i) unlawful be considered
(i) it is not unlawful if there is a defence, consider with defences
name 2 cases + their legal principles regarding (ii) killing of another
- R v Adams; D must accelerate V’s death by a more than negligible amount
-done by an act or omission ( difficulty establishing intent to kill/ cause GBH (R v Gibbons and Procter)
what happened/ is the legal principle in R v Adams
D must accelerate V’s death by a more than negligible amount
what happened/ is the legal principle in R v Gibbons and Procter
murder by omission is rare as it is difficult to establish intent to kill/ cause GBH
when should (ii) killing of another be considered
with causation
what is MR for murder
intention to kill (express malice) or cause GBH (implied malice)
give 2 cases + their legal principles regarding intention to kill/cause GBH
Vickers; intent to cause GBH is sufficient
Cunningham; confirmed Vickers + D can be reckless as to the possibility of causing foreseeable harm/GBH
what happened/ is the legal principle in Vickers
-D struck old woman to avoid being recognised while burgling her, she died
-intent to cause GBH is sufficient
what happened/ is the legal principle in Cunningham
-appellant gassed MIL by removing gas meter connected to her house for money
-confirmed Vickers
-D can be reckless as to the possibility of causing foreseeable harm/GBH
give 2 cases and the legal principles for direct intention
Moloney; no need to direct jury what intention means
-Woollin;jury may find intention if they are sure that (i)death/GBH was a virtual certainty (from D’s actions) and (ii) D appreciated that –> indirect intent
what happened/ is the legal principle of Moloney
no need to direct jury on what intention is
what is meant by GBH ( use case law)
DPP v Smith; GBH = really serious harm
what happened/ is the legal principle of DPP v Smith
GBH= really serious harm
what happened / is the legal principle in Woollin
-jury may find (indirect) intention if they are sure that
(i)death/GBH was a virtual certainty (from D’s actions) and
(ii) D appreciated that was the case
what are the types of involuntary manslaughter
Constructive/ UAM
Gross Negligence Manslaughter
what type of crime is constructive/ UAM
-result crime
-manslaughter = constructed from liability for a base crime
AR for Constructive/ UAM
-D performed act which is (i) unlawful (ii) dangerous and (iii) which caused V’s death
-confirmed in A-G’s Ref (No 2 0f 1994)
explain (i) unlawful for constructive/ UAM
-must be an initial criminal act with D committing AR + MR
give 5 cases + their legal principles regarding (i) unlawful for constructive/ UAM
-Goodfellow; no requirement that UA be directed at V or even a person
-Andrews v DPP; UA must be intrinsically criminal
-^^ confirmed by R v Franklin and R v Lamb
-R v Lowe; UAM cannot arise from omission
what happened / is the legal principle in Goodfellow
- no requirement that UA be directed at V or even a person
what happened / is the legal principle in Andrews v DPP
-UA must be intrinsically criminal
what happened / is the legal principle in R v Lowe
-UAM cannot arise from omission
what happened / is the legal principle in R v Franklin and R v Lamb
R v Franklin; threw beer crate off pier
R v Lamb; children + gun
confirms Andrews v DPP
explain the legal principles / cases regarding (ii) dangerous in UAM (4)
- R v Carey or R v M (and another); risk of some physical harm = sufficient
-obj test, no need to show D was aware act risked physical harm
-obj test asks whether person in D’s circs would know act = dangerous
-^^ conf in R v Church and R v JF
what happened / is the legal principle in R v Carey / R v M (and another)
-risk of some physical harm = sufficient
what happened / is the legal principle in R v Church / R v JF
-obj test for dangerousness asks whether person in D’s circs would know the act was dangerous
give 2 cases + legal principles on the obj appreciating dangerousness for UAM
R v Dawson; D couldnt appreciate danger as he had an imitation gun and didnt know of V’s weak heart condition
R v Watson; D could appreciate danger due to V’s old age making him vulnerable ( to heart attacks)
what happened / is the legal principle in R v Dawson
-D could not appreciate danger as he had imitation gun and no knowledge of V’s weak heart condition
what happened / is the legal principle in R v Watson
-D could appreciate danger due to V’s old age making him vulnerable to heart attacks
what are the cases and legal principles regarding (iii) UA must have caused V’s death in UAM
-normal causation rules (not omission tho)
-Kennedy No2; D not liable for UAM if V’s self injection of drugs = free, voluntary and informed
what happened / is the legal principle in Kennedy No2
-supplying drugs is not dangerous
-D is not liable for UAM if V’s self-injection = free, voluntary and informed
-F,V + I means D’s original contribution is no longer substantial/ operating
what type of crime is gross negligence manslaughter
-result crime
-where comitted via an act, D must hace owed V a duty of care
-foresight not needed
give 3 cases + legal principles regarding (i) owing a duty of care (act not omission) in GNM
-R v Wacker;DoCare = same as civil law definition
-R v Adomako; doctor-patient
-R v Litchfield; captain- crew / employer-employee
what happened / is the legal principle in R v Adomako
-doctors owe DoC to patients
-D didnt notice oxygen tube disconnected V died
-professional standard
what happened / is the legal principle in R v Wacker
-CA held DoCare has same meaning as it does in civil law
what happened / is the legal principle in R v Litchfield
-employers owe DoCare to employees
give 6 examples of duties to act (omissions)
-statutory duty
-contractual duty
-pre-existing relationship
-impliedly / expressly assumed relationship
-dangerous situation
give 4 cases + legal principles regarding duty to act from creation of a dangerous situation for GNM
-Miller; creation of dangerous situation, left room on fire recklessly
-R v Bowler; mummified suffocation, duty to act
-R v Evans; Miller extended to where D has duty to act where they merely contribute to creating dangerous situation (overdose)
-Kennedy No2; no duty to act if merely supplying drugs
what happened / is the legal principle in Miller
-creation of a dangerous situation creates a duty to act
-D recklessly left room that was on fire from his cigarette
what happened / is the legal principle in R v Bowler
-mummified sex suffocation
-duty to act
what happened / is the legal principle in R v Evans
-Miller extended so D has duty to act when merely contributing to dangerous situation
-drug overdose case
what happened / is the legal principle in Kennedy No2 regarding GNM
-no duty to act if merely supplying drugs
how is GNM established
(i) show D owed V a duty of care / duty to act
(ii)show D negligently breached duty to V in some way
(iii) show D’s breach of duty caused V’s death
(iv) show gross negligence
give 6 cases/legal principles regarding (ii) D negligently breached duty owed to V
-Obj test where jury decides if, from D’s act/omissions, would RP have forseen a serious and obvious risk of death
-R v S; pointing gun = obvious RoDeath
-Adomako; professionals standard
-R v Rose; diluted obj test to whether RP w/ D’s knowledge would foresee…
-R v Winterton; specialist knowledge not needed for really obv risks
-R v Kuddas; apply to class of person not specific V
what happened / is the legal principle in R v S
-obvious risk of death
-D pointed gun at V, didnt check chamber
what happened / is the legal principle in Adomako for (ii) D breached duty owed to V
-professionals/ specialist skills compared to RP of profession/ same skills
what happened / is the legal principle in R v Rose
-court diluted obj test to whether RP w/ D’s knowledge at the time would have foreseen serious/obv risk of death
what happened / is the legal principle in R v Winterton
-distinguished from Rose that specialist knowledge not needed for serious / obvious risk of death
what happened / is the legal principle in R v Kuddas
-when applying serious/obv risk of deat apply to class of person, ie ppl w/ peanut allergies, not specific V
how is (iii) D’s breach of duty caused V’s death considered
-normal causation rules for acts / omissions
give 3 legal principles/ cases for (iv) gross negligence
-R v Adomako; jury has wide discretion, takes all facts into account, more subj
-R v Rowley; Kennedy LJ said jury must be sure D’s conduct so bad i all the circs it amounted to CRIMINAL act/omission
-conf in Bateman by L. Hewartt
what happened / is the legal principle in R v Adomako for (iv) gross negligence
-wide discretion for jury
-take all facts into account
-more subj
what happened / is the legal principle in R v Rowley
-Kennedy LJ said jury must be sure D’s conduct so bad in all circs it amounted to CRIM act/omission
-GROSS negligence as crim law goes further than civil law
what happened / is the legal principle in Bateman
-conf R v Rowley
-L. Hewartt “ conduct which does not merely call for compensation but for criminal punishment
what type of crime is reckless manslaughter
result crime
not enough for murder which requires direct (Vickers)/indirect(Woollin) intent to kill/GBH
test/case for recklessness
R v G&R;
(i)was D aware of risk of death/ GBH
(ii)would RP in circs have taken that risk
case example for reckless manslaughter
-R v Lidar;
-V hanging from D’s window fighting w/ passenger
- D accelerated and ran V over
when is reckless manslaughter needed
-only where (i)D kills via omission (no UAM) +
-(ii)where D’s omission does not pose an objectively foreseeable risk of death (no GNM)
-death/GBH = highly likely but not virtual certainty
