Murder/Manslaughter Flashcards
Andrews v DPP 1937
D employed by transport company.
Asked to take van out.
D overtook car, killing V.
Drove van back to garage.
Easily identified, convicted of manslaughter.
Appeal: Judge misdirected on manslaughter.
Jury should have other options.
Held: Driving is a lawful act, made potentially unlawful by recklessness.
In this case the recklessness was sufficient to convict.
Appeal dismissed.
Attorney General’s Reference (No. 2 of 1999)
High speed/freight trains collided.
Safety systems on HST disabled.
Second driver required, not provided.
Danger signals missed by driver.
Held: GNM doesn’t depend on mens rea (Adomako) but may be relevant re. degree of negligence.
Corporation’s liability dependent on individual.
Aggregate or civil not sufficient.
* Either an individual is responsible or upper management for not having systems in place.
Attorney-General’s Reference (No. 3 of 1994)
D stabbed V1 (Pregnant). Doctors repaired uterus wall. Foetus mistakenly held as uninjured. V gave birth 16 days later. Child died after 120 days. Held: By doctrine of transferred malice, and as the child survived independently of the mother for 120 days, D guilty of murder of foetus.
DPP v Newbury & Jones 1976
Two appellants convicted of manslaughter.
Dropped paving slab from bridge in front of oncoming train.
Certified question: Result not foreseen, can D be properly convicted?
Held: Intention to do unlawful act must be proved.
D’s knowledge of unlawfulness/danger objective.
Kong Cheuk Kwan 1986
Two hydrofoils collided between Hong Kong/Macau.
D (Only one of four) convicted of manslaughter.
D directed jury in terms of risk of causing harm, albeit not serious, to V.
Held on appeal: Direction should have followed Lawrence.
D’s action created obvious risk.
D hadn’t considered the risk OR
had but continued regardless.
Appeal allowed, conviction quashed.
R v Ball 1989
D shot and killed V.
Live and blank rounds in D’s pocket.
Claimed to believe that the cartridges were blank.
Judge withdrew belief from jury.
Appeal: Objective test applied to act D believed himself to be committing.
Held: Objective test established intention/unlawfulness.
Dangerousness judged objectively.
Reasonable man can’t be imputed w/ mistaken belief.
Appeal dismissed.
R v Goodfellow 1986
D set fire to council house hoping to be rehoused.
Fire spread too quickly, wife, friend, one child killed.
D convicted of manslaughter.
Appealed against direction to jury.
Held: Judge directed correctly on manslaughter.
Additionally included Lawrence directions which actually favoured the defendant.
D could have been convicted either way.
Conviction safe, appeal dismissed.
R v Lamb 1967
D fired revolver at V.
V killed, neither appreciated risk.
D unaware chamber brought bullet into position.
Judge directed on unlawful and dangerous act and carelessness, stating they may overlap.
D convicted of manslaughter on both counts.
On appeal: Mens rea necessary for manslaughter (Andrews/Church).
Direction of unlawful act erroneous.
Conviction possible on negligence/recklessness.
Judge direction on overlap D’s defence (Mistake of fact) unfairly coloured, knowledge of danger imported from manslaughter charge.
Conviction unsafe, appeal allowed.
R v Misra 2004
Standard knee surgery performed on V.
Under care of D developed serious infection resulting in toxic shock syndrome causing death.
D failed to diagnose or even appreciate infection.
Convicted of gross negligence manslaughter.
Appeal: Jury left to define offence.
Incompatible with ECHR.
Held: Jury determining if behaviour was grossly negligent, criminality a consequence.
D- Owed duty of care
- Failed to diagnose/treat
- Breach amounted to gross neg.
- Neg. substantial cause of death.
Disposes of Art. 6 issue also.
Appeal denied.
R v Vickers 1957
D broke into V (Elderly woman)’s house.
V deaf, D expected no resistance.
V came to basement, D hit her to avoid identification, killed her.
Evidence of kicking while down, disputed by D.
D found guilty of murder.
Appeal: Constructive malice abolished, no mens rea.
Held: Offence being furthered disregarded.
D intended to knock V unconscious, GBH.
Jury directed properly.
Appeal dismissed.
R v Watson 1989
D broke V’s window with brick, entered home.
Found D to be 87 y/o man, verbally abused him, left with nothing.
V later died of heart attack.
D convicted of manslaughter.
Appeal: ‘Reasonable man’ wouldn’t have knowledge of V’s age.
Heart attack could have been caused by police arrival.
Held: Dismissing first appeal, reasonable man test continues for duration of act, would have perceived age.
Judge directed jury to decide between two conflicting medical opinions.
Upon return gave option to link causation to D’s act.
Counsel unable to address, nature of claim substantially changed.
Appeal allowed, conviction (Questionably) quashed.
R v Stone & Dobinson 1977
D 1 and 2 both of low intelligence. D1's sister came to stay. Nervous of weight gain, refused food. Comedy of errors. V died of toxaemia from bed sores. Held: D undertook care of V. D grossly negligent. By reason of negligence V died.
R v Pittwood 1902
Gatekeeper forgot to close gate. Driver hit by train. D claimed duty was to company, not V. Argued inattentiveness, not criminal neglect. Held: Duty arose from contract. Direct causal link. Appeal dismissed.
