Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

Criminal Law > Murder + Involuntary Manslaughter (UAM + GNM) + Reckless Manslaughter > Flashcards

Murder + Involuntary Manslaughter (UAM + GNM) + Reckless Manslaughter Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
MBE flashcards MPRE flashcards Civil Procedure 1L flashcards
1
Q

AR of murder

A

(i) unlawful (ii) killing of another (iii) person in (iv) the King’s peace

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

what type of crime/offence is murder (2)

A

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

how is AR conduct element satisfied

A

by any conduct that causes V’s death, type of conduct is irrelevant

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

name 3 cases and their legal principles regarding (iii) a person

A

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

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

what happened/ is the legal principle of R v Poulton

A

foetuses cannot be murdered, must be born alive

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

what happened/ is the legal principle of R v Senior

A

murder if born alive but dies of prior injuries

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

what happened/ is the legal principle of murder if born alive but dies of prior injuries
AG’s Ref (No.3 1994)

A

no transferred malice of intent to harm mother of foetus

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

give 3 cases/ legal principles regarding the definition of death

A

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

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

what happened/ is the legal principle in Re: A (a minor)

A

death = medical definition of death

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

what happened/ is the legal principle of R v Malcherek & Steel

A

-confirms Re: A (a minor) -brain death = death

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

what happened/ is the legal principle of R v Bland

A

ppl in permanent vegetative states and comas = alive

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

when should (i) unlawful be considered

A

(i) it is not unlawful if there is a defence, consider with defences

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

name 2 cases + their legal principles regarding (ii) killing of another

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

what happened/ is the legal principle in R v Adams

A

D must accelerate V’s death by a more than negligible amount

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

what happened/ is the legal principle in R v Gibbons and Procter

A

murder by omission is rare as it is difficult to establish intent to kill/ cause GBH

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

when should (ii) killing of another be considered

A

with causation

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

what is MR for murder

A

intention to kill (express malice) or cause GBH (implied malice)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

give 2 cases + their legal principles regarding intention to kill/cause GBH

A

Vickers; intent to cause GBH is sufficient
Cunningham; confirmed Vickers + D can be reckless as to the possibility of causing foreseeable harm/GBH

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

what happened/ is the legal principle in Vickers

A

-D struck old woman to avoid being recognised while burgling her, she died
-intent to cause GBH is sufficient

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

what happened/ is the legal principle in Cunningham

A

-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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

give 2 cases and the legal principles for direct intention

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

what happened/ is the legal principle of Moloney

A

no need to direct jury on what intention is

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

what is meant by GBH ( use case law)

A

DPP v Smith; GBH = really serious harm

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

what happened/ is the legal principle of DPP v Smith

A

GBH= really serious harm

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

what happened / is the legal principle in Woollin

A

-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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

what are the types of involuntary manslaughter

A

Constructive/ UAM
Gross Negligence Manslaughter

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

what type of crime is constructive/ UAM

A

-result crime
-manslaughter = constructed from liability for a base crime

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

AR for Constructive/ UAM

A

-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)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

explain (i) unlawful for constructive/ UAM

A

-must be an initial criminal act with D committing AR + MR

30
Q

give 5 cases + their legal principles regarding (i) unlawful for constructive/ UAM

A

-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

31
Q

what happened / is the legal principle in Goodfellow

A
  • no requirement that UA be directed at V or even a person
32
Q

what happened / is the legal principle in Andrews v DPP

A

-UA must be intrinsically criminal

33
Q

what happened / is the legal principle in R v Lowe

A

-UAM cannot arise from omission

34
Q

what happened / is the legal principle in R v Franklin and R v Lamb

A

R v Franklin; threw beer crate off pier
R v Lamb; children + gun
confirms Andrews v DPP

35
Q
A
36
Q

explain the legal principles / cases regarding (ii) dangerous in UAM (4)

A
  • 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
37
Q

what happened / is the legal principle in R v Carey / R v M (and another)

A

-risk of some physical harm = sufficient

38
Q

what happened / is the legal principle in R v Church / R v JF

A

-obj test for dangerousness asks whether person in D’s circs would know the act was dangerous

39
Q

give 2 cases + legal principles on the obj appreciating dangerousness for UAM

A

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)

40
Q

what happened / is the legal principle in R v Dawson

A

-D could not appreciate danger as he had imitation gun and no knowledge of V’s weak heart condition

41
Q

what happened / is the legal principle in R v Watson

A

-D could appreciate danger due to V’s old age making him vulnerable to heart attacks

42
Q

what are the cases and legal principles regarding (iii) UA must have caused V’s death in UAM

A

-normal causation rules (not omission tho)
-Kennedy No2; D not liable for UAM if V’s self injection of drugs = free, voluntary and informed

43
Q

what happened / is the legal principle in Kennedy No2

A

-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

44
Q

what type of crime is gross negligence manslaughter

A

-result crime
-where comitted via an act, D must hace owed V a duty of care
-foresight not needed

45
Q

give 3 cases + legal principles regarding (i) owing a duty of care (act not omission) in GNM

A

-R v Wacker;DoCare = same as civil law definition
-R v Adomako; doctor-patient
-R v Litchfield; captain- crew / employer-employee

46
Q

what happened / is the legal principle in R v Adomako

A

-doctors owe DoC to patients
-D didnt notice oxygen tube disconnected V died
-professional standard

47
Q

what happened / is the legal principle in R v Wacker

A

-CA held DoCare has same meaning as it does in civil law

48
Q

what happened / is the legal principle in R v Litchfield

A

-employers owe DoCare to employees

49
Q

give 6 examples of duties to act (omissions)

A

-statutory duty
-contractual duty
-pre-existing relationship
-impliedly / expressly assumed relationship
-dangerous situation

50
Q

give 4 cases + legal principles regarding duty to act from creation of a dangerous situation for GNM

A

-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

51
Q

what happened / is the legal principle in Miller

A

-creation of a dangerous situation creates a duty to act
-D recklessly left room that was on fire from his cigarette

52
Q

what happened / is the legal principle in R v Bowler

A

-mummified sex suffocation
-duty to act

53
Q

what happened / is the legal principle in R v Evans

A

-Miller extended so D has duty to act when merely contributing to dangerous situation
-drug overdose case

54
Q

what happened / is the legal principle in Kennedy No2 regarding GNM

A

-no duty to act if merely supplying drugs

55
Q

how is GNM established

A

(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

56
Q

give 6 cases/legal principles regarding (ii) D negligently breached duty owed to V

A

-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

57
Q

what happened / is the legal principle in R v S

A

-obvious risk of death
-D pointed gun at V, didnt check chamber

58
Q

what happened / is the legal principle in Adomako for (ii) D breached duty owed to V

A

-professionals/ specialist skills compared to RP of profession/ same skills

59
Q

what happened / is the legal principle in R v Rose

A

-court diluted obj test to whether RP w/ D’s knowledge at the time would have foreseen serious/obv risk of death

60
Q

what happened / is the legal principle in R v Winterton

A

-distinguished from Rose that specialist knowledge not needed for serious / obvious risk of death

61
Q

what happened / is the legal principle in R v Kuddas

A

-when applying serious/obv risk of deat apply to class of person, ie ppl w/ peanut allergies, not specific V

62
Q

how is (iii) D’s breach of duty caused V’s death considered

A

-normal causation rules for acts / omissions

63
Q

give 3 legal principles/ cases for (iv) gross negligence

A

-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

64
Q

what happened / is the legal principle in R v Adomako for (iv) gross negligence

A

-wide discretion for jury
-take all facts into account
-more subj

65
Q

what happened / is the legal principle in R v Rowley

A

-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

66
Q

what happened / is the legal principle in Bateman

A

-conf R v Rowley
-L. Hewartt “ conduct which does not merely call for compensation but for criminal punishment

67
Q

what type of crime is reckless manslaughter

A

result crime
not enough for murder which requires direct (Vickers)/indirect(Woollin) intent to kill/GBH

68
Q

test/case for recklessness

A

R v G&R;
(i)was D aware of risk of death/ GBH
(ii)would RP in circs have taken that risk

69
Q

case example for reckless manslaughter

A

-R v Lidar;
-V hanging from D’s window fighting w/ passenger
- D accelerated and ran V over

70
Q

when is reckless manslaughter needed

A

-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

Criminal Law (17 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions