Paper 1: involuntary manslaughter Flashcards
What is the maximum sentence?
Life imprisonment
What are the two types?
Unlawful act manslaughter (constructive manslaughter), and gross negligence manslaughter
Key elements of unlawful act manslaughter
1) The act must be unlawful
2) Which must be dangerous on an objective test
3) The act must cause the death
4) D must have the mens rea for the unlawful act
What must be unlawful act be?
A crime
franklin (1883)
Facts: D threw a box into the sea. The box hit and killed a swimmer
Held: Throwing the box was a civil wrong and not a crime and so D was not liable for unlawful act manslaughter
R v Lamb (1967)
Facts: D and a friend were playing with a gun. Neither D nor V realised that the gun was loaded into the firing position. D pulled the trigger and killed V
Held: There was no assault as V did not know the gun was loaded and therefore could be no unlawful act manslaughter
Church (1966)
- The accused’s need not be the one who foresaw the harm, but any ‘sober and reasonsable’ person
- The risk may be only ‘some harm’, not necessarily serious harm
Larkin (1943)
Facts: D threatened a man with an open cut-throat razor. A woman accidentally fell on the open blade which cut her throat and killed her
Facts: The unlawful act was threatening someone with a razor which, objectively, carried a risk of some injury or harm
Goodfellow (1986)
Facts: D set fire to a council flat so council would rehouse him, the fire got out of control and D’s wife, son and another person died
Held: His conviction for manslaughter was upheld. There was no requirement that the unlawful act was directed at the victims nor that it was directed at a person
Watson (1989)
Facts: Two D’s threw a brick through the window of a house and broke in. D’s physically abused a frail man and then left
Held: The CA said that the act of bugulary could be ‘dangerous’ in that it became dangerous as soon as the old man’s condition would have be apparent to the reasonable man
R v Birstow and others (2013)
Facts: D’s burgled a secluded farm that was located down a single track, the owner disturbed the burglars and was killed in a hit and run by accident by atheist one of the vehicles used by D’s
Held: In those circumstances, a reasonable person would recognise the risk of some harm being caused to a person intervening at night, in the dark, where there was only one route of escape. Hence, the burglary was an unlawful act which was dangerous
Carey (2006)
the unlawful and dangerous act need not be the sole cause of death as it is not trivial
Newbury and Jones (1976)
Facts: 2 teenaged boys pushed a piece of paving stone from a bridge on to railway, the train guard was killed
Held: Hl confirmed D could be charged with unlawful act even if he did not foresee any harm from his act, it was sufficient that the unlawful act was dangerous and D had the necessary mens rea for that act
What is gross negligence manslaughter
Committed wen the defendant owes the victim a duty of care and breaches that duty which causes the death of the victim, this can be an act or an omission but does not have to be unlawful
Adamako (1994)
Principle of negligence in civil law should apply in gross negligence manslaughter when asking a duty of care exists, and whether the duty has been breached
What are the sections of gross negligence manslaughter?
1) Duty of care
2) Breach of duty
3) Causes the death of V
4) Gross negligence
Donoghue v Stevenson (1932)
Lord Atkin created the ‘love thy neighbours’ principle: ‘you should avoid acts or omissions which are reasonably foreseeable to injure your neighbour’
Stone and Dobinson (1977)
Held: Stone and Dobinson were found liable for the death of the sister as they took her on voluntarily to look after her before leaving her
Litchfield (1998)
Held: D owed a duty to his crew on a contractual basis
Singh (1999)
Held: a duty to manage and maintain property on a contractual basis
Khan and Khan (1998)
Held: the CA quashed their conviction, but thought there could be a duty to summon medical assistance in certain circumstances, so D could be liable for failing to do so. CA said obiter that the law is capable of expanding and extending to include new duty situations
Wacker (2002)
Held: safety of the victims depended upon his actions
Willoughby (2005)
Held: confirmed that D and V who were complicit in a crime does not prevent duty of case as here there was a combination of being an owner of a pub, a fire for his benefit enlisting V to help which resulted in a death
Evans (2009)- state of affairs
Held: both the mother and half sister were owed a duty of care. D created a state of affairs which he knows or ought reasonably to have known has become life threatening
Evans (2009)- breach
D’s breached their duty as they did not get medical help, which a reasonable person would do
R v Bateman (1925)
Facts: Doctor convicted of manslaughter arising of treatment of a woman in childbirth
Held: ‘It must be beyond a matter of mere compensation between subjects’ and show ‘such disregard for the life and safety of others to amount to a crime against the State and conduct deserving of punishment’
R v Finlay (2001)
Held: Jury felt that D’s conduct did not show such disregard for life and safety of others so as to amount to gross negligence
R v Edwards (2001)
Held: D’s ignored an obvious and serious danger and this amounted to gross negligence
Misra and another (2004)
- The test for GNM involved a consideration of the risk of death
- There must be an obvious risk of death which D must consider
- D doesn’t have to foresee the risk, objectively it is there
