(RED) Involuntary Manslaughter Flashcards

1
Q

What happened in the Adomako case? (GNM)

A

The patient’s breathing apparatus disconnected and it took 9 minutes for the anaesthetist to discover this, by which point the patient had suffered a cardiac arrest. They failed to notice the lack of breathing, the disconnection, the patient was becoming progressively blue, the alarm on the ventilator wasn’t switched on and the dials weren’t operating. This was described as abysmal and a gross dereliction of care.

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

What are the elements of gross negligence manslaughter from Adomako?

A
  • D must owe V a duty of care
  • D must breach the duty (which involves a risk of death)
  • D’s breach must cause V’s death
  • D must be grossly negligent
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

How do you prove duty of care in GNM?

A

Use a duty to act if possible but if not or if it is a new/novel situation then use the Caparo test (damage to V was reasonably foreseeable, there was proximity between D and V and it is fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty on D).

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

What are the 5 duties to act and the cases relating to them? (GNM)

A

Contractual- R v Pittwood
Relationship of dependency- R v Gibbons and Proctor
Assuming responsibility voluntarily- R v Stone and Dobinson
Public office- R v Dytham
Creating a dangerous situation- R v Miller

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

What happened in the case of R v Evans? (GNM)

A

D supplied her sister with heroin. When she saw her having a bad reaction to it, D put her sister to bed and stayed with her all night. When D woke up, her sister had died. This was a voluntary assumption of care because she had put V in a vulnerable position and put her sister to bed without seeking medical help.

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

What does the case of R v Evans say in relation to a voluntary assumption of care? (GNM)

A

In GNM, the assumption of care must be significant for D to be held responsible for an omission. This is normally where D has willingly and actively taken over the care of V. It is not enough to make a person criminally responsible if all they are trying to do is help or do the right thing.

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

Which case says that ex turpi causa does not apply to GNM?

A

R v Wacker (transportation of illegal immigrants who suffocated in the van).

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

How do you prove that D breached their duty of care? (GNM)

A

Explain standard of care- Blyth and any factors that affect the standard of care (Nettleship v Weston, Bolam v Friern Barnet HMC, Wells v Cooper, Mullin v Richards). Then use 2 risk factors from: size of risk, seriousness of potential harm, practicability of precautions and benefits outweigh the risks.

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

Which case confirmed the need for a risk of death in GNM?

A

Misra v Srivastava

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

What happened in the case of Lewin v CPS and what is the legal principle? (GNM)

A

Potential defendant left his drunk friend in his car and returned hours later to did V dead. It was decided that the reasonable person would not have realised there was a risk of death.
Principle- the reasonable person must realise the risk of death.

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

How do you prove that D’s breach caused V’s death? (GNM)

A

Factual causation- ‘but for’ test as in R v Pagett
Legal causation- ‘operative and substantial’ test as in R v Smith and look at if there are any intervening acts.

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

What does Adomako define gross negligence as? (GNM)

A

D’s conduct is so bad as to amount to a criminal act or omission. (In a scenario argue it both ways like a discussion).

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

What is unlawful act manslaughter?

A

When D does not intend to kill or cause GBH but has committed an unlawful act which has led to the death of V.

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

What are the 4 elements of unlawful act manslaughter?

A
  • D must commit an unlawful act
  • D must have the mens rea for the unlawful act
  • The unlawful act must cause V’s death
  • The unlawful act must be dangerous
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

What does R v Stone and Dobinson say in relation to UAM?

A

The unlawful act must be an act, an omission is not enough.

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

Which case said that the unlawful act in UAM must be criminal not civil?

A

R v Franklin

17
Q

What does R v Lamb say in relation to UAM?

A

D must have all the elements of the unlawful act, the actus reus and the mens rea.

18
Q

What is and isn’t covered under UAM?

A

Any act which is lawful but is carried out badly isn’t included.
Examples of unlawful acts are: assault, battery, arson, criminal damage, blackmail, careless driving etc.

19
Q

Which case says that D doesn’t have to foresee any harm from their act and that they only need the mens rea of the unlawful act in UAM?

A

DPP v Newbury and Jones

20
Q

What does the case of Mitchell say in UAM?

A

Malice can be transferred from one victim to another.

21
Q

How do you prove causation for UAM?

A

Same as for other criminal offences- factual but for test (R v Pagett). Legal operative and substantial test (R v Smith) and look for intervening acts.
However, there is also R v Dear which says that self neglect by V doesn’t break the chain of causation. For example, V not seeking hospital treatment or not taking any medication given to them.

22
Q

What is the law regarding drug cases when D has supplied V drugs in UAM?

A

If V self administers the drugs then this breaks the chain of causation and D does not have legal causation as in Kennedy.
If D administers the drugs to V then this doesn’t break the chain of causation and D will have legal causation as in Cato.

23
Q

How does the case of Church define a dangerous act in UAM?

A

An act is dangerous if a sober and reasonable person would realise that it carries a risk of some physical harm to another person.

24
Q

What does the case of Watson say in UAM?

A

The reasonable person will be given any knowledge that D would have gained about V when doing the unlawful act. (The reasonable person is like a bystander).

25
Q

Which case specifies that there is no need for the sober and reasonable person to foresee the specific harm from which V dies, only that V could suffer physical harm of some sort in UAM?

A

R v JM and SM

26
Q

What does the case of Goodfellow say in UAM?

A

An unlawful act can be aimed at property as long as the sober and reasonable person would realise it carried the risk of some physical harm to a person.

27
Q

What happened in the case of R v Farnon and Ellis in UAM?

A

D was 14 but had the mental age of a 6 year old and set fire to a derelict building not knowing that someone was inside. It was decided that the sober and reasonable person would have foreseen the risk of some physical harm and that D’s lack of knowledge made no difference and D would still be guilty.