Section 2. Criminal Law Flashcards
What is an example of a case where parliament enacts that something is a crime or changes the law to make something no longer crime?
- Ponting case (1985)
- A civil servant was charged with breaching the Official Secrets Act for releasing privileged information about the sinking of the Argentinian warship General Belgrano
- The judge told the jury that any public interest in the information did not provide a defence
- However, the jury acquitted him
What is retributive justice?
System of criminal justice based on the punishment of offenders rather than on rehab
What is corrective justice?
Idea that liability rectifies the injustice inflicted by one person to another
How is criminal law set down and how can it be passed?
- Set down by the state
- Can be passed by an Act of Parliament such as the Theft Act 1968 or by the issuing of regulations
What is an example of a case created by judges in modern times on rape?
- Marital rape declared a crime in R v R (1991)
- Before that case, the law held that a husband could not be guilty of raping his wife, as she was assume, by fact of marriage, to consent to sexual intercourse with him
- When the HofLs decided the case of R v R they pointed out that society’s views on the position of women had changed
When prosecuting what two elements must be proved?
- Actus reus
- Mens rea
What is actus reus?
- The physical element of the crime. Refers to the alleged act itself
- E.g. The killing of a human being
What is Mens Rea?
- The mental element of the act or the degree of intent
- E.g. The intention to actually kill the person
How do Actus Reus and Mens Rea connect to each other?
- Both of these elements must be together to constitute the offence, however, if the act is ongoing and the presence of men’s rea at any point can be proved, that is sufficient
- If there’s a valid defence, however, even if actus reus and men’s rea are both there, the defendant may still be found not guilty
When might a judge create criminal law setting precedents?
- When the law doesn’t appear to cover a particular matter, the judge can rule to criminalise it
- E.g. In Shaw v DPP (1962), the House of Lords decided that in publishing a directory advertising prostitutes and their ‘services’, the defendant was guilt of ‘corrupting public morals’
How does acts reus and mens rea work in strict liability cases?
- The prosecution only has to prove actus reus
- A driver who is over the limit may not realise he is over the limit, but he is still committing a criminal offence
What are the defences for murder?
- There is no defence to murder however you can have a partial defence which would lower the charge from murder to manslaughter
What defences can lead to a ‘not guilty’ verdict when the defendant has committed an offence?
- Insanity
- Automatism (difficult to define, but generally meaning acts done whilst unconscious or involuntary acts)
- Intoxication
- Duress
- Necessity
What are general defences?
Defences which arise from specific characteristics of the defendant or the circumstances of the offence e.g. automatism, duress, intoxication, etc.
What are mental capacity defences?
The mental state of the defendant at the time of the commission of a crime or at the time of a criminal trial e.g. automatism, diminished responsibility, insanity, intoxication
What defences don’t work with murder?
- Duress and necessity are not defences for murder
- Intoxication can only be used as a defence when the defendant DID NOT HAVE the required mens rea
How does the standard of proof work in criminal cases?
Need to be ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ in order to convict’ and until that’s proved, the person is presumed innocent
How does the Burden of proof work in cases?
On the prosecution to prove that the actus reus and mens rea were both there when the offence was committed and until that’s proved, the person is presumed innocent
Why is burden and standard of proof important in criminal cases?
Until they can be proved, the person is presumed innocent.
What are the rules around standard of proof and burden of proof?
- It is up to the prosecution to prove the case
- This rule applies to all criminal cases and in any criminal court
- Guilt must be proved beyond reasonable doubt
- Any reasonable doubt can be raised from either the prosecution or the defence
How does the defendant raising a defence work?
- If they wish to they can and it’s up to the trial judge to advise the jury to acquit unless they are satisfied that the prosecution has disapproved the evidence provided by the defence
- In certain cases, such as pleading insanity, there is a reverse onus on the defendant to prove his case
What is a key rule of English law relating to standard of proof?
Judges cannot tell the jury how to decide, however, where the judge feels that the standard of proof isn’t good enough then they can tell the jury to acquit the defendant
What is a conduct crime?
Where the actus reus is the prohibited conduct itself. There does not have to be a consequence. E.g. drink driving
What is a consequence crime?
- Where the defendant doing something (or failing to do something) results in a prohibited consequence
- E.g. assault occasioning actual bodily harm. For the consequence crime to consequence must have an actus reus
What is a ‘State of affairs’?
- Where the actus reus is simply the act in itself e.g. carrying an offensive weapon in a public place or being in possession of a controlled substance
- It doesn’t matter what the defendant intends to do with either. The act in itself is an offence
What is the voluntary nature of actus reus?
- When someone has not entered into the offence voluntarily e.g. R v Larsonneur (1933)
- In most cases, if D has no control over his actions, then there is no actus reus e.g. having a heart attack in a vehicle while driving
- Where there is absence of fault, the defendant is not liable
What are omissions as actus reus?
The rule that failing to act in a certain situation doesn’t make a person guilty of an offence
What is a ‘Good Samaritan law’?
- It makes a person responsible for helping other people in an ‘emergency situation’, even though they are complete strangers
- There are many problems with this law e.g. the risk that an untrained person by intervening could do more harm to an injured person
What is the exception for omissions as actus reus?
Where a duty to act already exists, then actus reus applies in an omission
What is a statutory duty?
- When an Act of Parliament creates liability when there is an omission, an offence can be committed for failing to do something
- E.g. falling to submit to a breath test. (s 1 Children and Young Persons Act 1933)
What is a contractual duty?
Where you have a duty of care in your job. e.g. A lifeguard leaving his post unattended where somebody drowns
What is relationship duty?
- Where either a parent/child relationship operates, or the other way round, a child caring for an elderly relative
- E.g. R v Gibbins and Proctor (1918)
What are the duties which have been undertaken voluntarily?
- Duties through an official position
- Duties that arise because the defendant has set in motion a chain of events
- Duty of doctors
How does duties arise through an official position work?
- R v Dytham (1979)
- Contractual duty between policeman and man being beaten up
- The policeman was charged with misconduct as he neglected to perform his duty
How does duties arise because the defendant has set in motion a chain of events?
- R v Miller (1983)
- D fell asleep while smoking a cigarette and awoke to his mattress on fire in which he didn’t attempt on putting out the fire but went into a different room and went back to sleep
- The house caught on fire and he was convicted of arson. It wasn’t the mattress being on fire making him guilty but that he had failed to do anything to stop the fire
- This omission meant that he had committed the actus reus for arson
- The House of Lords pointed out they only expected Miller to try it out the smaller fire at a lower risk but if it was too dangerous for him then his duty was to summon the fire brigade
What is the duty of doctors?
- There can be cases where doctors decide to stop treating a patient.
- If this discontinuance of treatment is in the best interests of the patient then it is not an omission that can form the actus reus
- (Decided in Airedale NHS Trust v Bland (1993))
When a consequence must be proved, what must the prosecution show?
- The defendant’s conduct was the factual cause of that consequence
- It was the legal cause of that consequence and that there was no intervening act which broke the chain of causation
What is factual cause?
- Where the consequence would not have happened but for the defendant’s actions e.g. R v Pagett (1983)
- There has been cases where the definition of ‘cause’ has been separated out between the strict legal effect and the ‘but for’ consequence e.g. R v Hughes (2013)
What is legal cause?
As long as the prosecution can prove that the defendant’s conduct was more than ‘just a minimal cause’ of the consequence, then they can be convicted e.g. R v Kimsey (1996)
What are multiple causes?
When the defendant can be guilty even if their conduct was not the only cause of the consequence
What is the ‘thin-skull’ rule?
If the victim suffers an even greater injury owing to their physical or mental state (they suffer more than a ‘normal’ person would, the defendant is liable for that injury e.g. R v Blaue (1975)
What is a ‘break in the chain of causation’?
- There must be a direct link from the defendant’s conduct to the consequence
- E.g. D injures V -> V injured in ambulance crash -> V dies
- The intervening act has to be sufficiently serious and independent of the defendant’s conduct however for the defendant to be found not guilty
Can medical treatment break the chain of causation?
- It’s unlikely unless it is so independent of the defendant’s acts and in ‘in itself so potent in causing death’ that the defendant’s acts are insignificant
- Three cases show this: R v Smith (1959), R v Cheshire (1991), R v Jordan (1956)
Factual v Legal causation - For a offence to be proved, what 3 questions must be asked?
- But for Defendant’s actions? Would these actions happened
- Where the Defendant’s actions are more than just a minimal cause
- Will an intervening act break the chain of causation
When can liability apply to the Victim’s own act?
- When the defendant causes the victim to act in such a way that they injure themselves
- E.g. R v Roberts (1972) and R v Marjoram (2000)
- Sometimes the victim’s own act can break the chain of causation. R v Kennedy (2007)
How can an unreasonable reaction cause a break in the chain of causation?
- If the victim reacts in a disproportionate or unreasonable way to a threat and in so doing injuries or kills themselves
- E.g. R v Williams and Davis (1992)
What is the highest level of mens rea?
- Intention (defendant must have had it in his mind to bring about the consequence)
What has been stated in law on intention relating to mens rea?
- In Mohan (1975), the judge made very clear that the reason for carrying out the action was not relevant to the point
- Where mens rea is concerned, the motive is not the issue, it is the intention to carry out the prohibited activity that is
What is Direct intent?
- That they intend the specific consequence to occur
- E.g. D puts gun to V’s head, pulls the trigger and kills him. Here, the direct intent was for D to kill V
What is oblique intent?
- Where the defendant intends one thing but the actual consequence which occurs is another thing
- E.g. D pushes a concrete block from a bridge onto the roadway with the intention of frightening someone so as the stop him going to work. Concrete block killsdriver of the car - not intended result
What is foresight of consequences?
- If the prosecution can prove that the defendant in doing one action with an intended consequence could actually foresee other negative consequences as a result, then he may be proved guilty
- E.g. If i burn down a shop in order to get an insurance claim, but there are people in the shop that get injured, it is reasonable to presume that i knew beforehand that my actions might endanger the people inside
What is a natural consequence?
A consequence that might occur
What is a probable consequence?
A consequence that most likely WILL occur
What is the objective test?
The reasonable person Is what would a person of the same characteristics as the defendant in the same situation what would they have thought at that time
What happened in Moloney (1985) relating to consequence?
The problem with the suggestion, in this case, is that it does not address the question in this case whether a consequence was inevitable or not
What happened in Nedrick (1986) relating to consequence?
The Court of Appeal tries to correct the problem in Moloney (1986) and suggests whether the outcome was inevitable and whether the defendant was aware of this or not
What happened in Woolin (1998) relating to consequence?
The decision in Woollin is that foresight of consequence if its probable needs to be found rather than inferred or suggested in order to prove intention
What are the problems of defining the concept of intention where foresight of consequences is concerned?
- Natural and probable consequence
- Difficulty for jurors in applying the tests after Moloney and Hancock
- The change in Woollin from inferring intention to finding intention
- The fact that there are still two interpretations of Woollin
What is subjective recklessness?
- A lower level of mens rea than intention
- When the defendant knows there is a risk of a consequence, but takes the risk anyway e.g. Cunningham (1957)
What is negligence?
- Failing to meet the standards of a reasonable person
- What the defendant thought or intended is not relevant
- Lower level of fault that intention and recklessness e.g. driving without due care or attention
What are strict liability offences?
Offences where mens rea is not required to be proved in respect of at least one aspect of the actus reus
How must strict liability offences be proved?
- It must be proved that the defendant did the relevant actus reus
- It also has to proved that the doing of the actus reus was voluntary
- The idea of not requiring men’s rea for part of the offence is illustrated by two cases: R v Prince (1875) and R v Hibbert (1869)
- Can also be justified if the statute is deemed to cover a matter of public concern e.g. R v Blake (1997)
Can a defendant be convicted if his voluntary act resulted in a unforeseen prohibited circumstance (no fault)?
- Yes, can be convicted
- It doesn’t even matter if he was totally blameless. Callow v Tillstone (1900)
- ‘Due diligence’ means where the defendant has done all in his power to prevent the committing of an offence. It doesn’t matter though. Harrow LBC v Shah and Shah (1999)
- Even if the defendant has made an honest mistake, this still doesn’t matter. Cundy v Le Cocq (1884)
What is the summary of strict liability?
- The actus reus must be proven
- Voluntary act
- No need to prove mens rea for at least part of the actus reus
- No due diligence available
- No defence of mistake
What is statutory interpretation?
When you have a law or act of parliament and it isn’t very clear. When the judge has to try and apply the law in the way he imagined it was intended by parliament
What are problems with statutory interpretation?
- It’s usually clear whether Parliament has expressed that men’s rea is required or not from the language used in the statute and this becomes a problem for the courts, when this is not clear. E.g. Sweet v Parsley (1969)
- The wording of an act of parliament may also need to be examined closely to see if there are any sections that either imply strict liability or the defence of due diligence
- If there are express provisions for men’s rea in other sections of the act, then the courts have to think about what parliament’s original intent might have been
What is murder?
- Common law offence
- “Murder is the unlwaful killing of a reasonable person in being and under the King’s (Queen’s) Peace with malice aforethought (evil intent), express or implied” - Lord Coke, 17th C.
What is the actus reus of murder?
The defendant must have killed a reasonable creature (person), in peace time, in an unlawful manner
How is ‘Killed’ explained in the actus reus of murder?
- Can either be by act or omission and must cause the death of the victim
- E.g. In Gibbins and Proctor (1918), the father of a 7 year old girl and his mistress were guilty of murder through omission of failure – they had starved the girl to death
Is causation a issue in proving actus reus?
Normally not an issue, the defendant kills the victim directly, but there may be other issues such as poor medical treatment etc.
The phrase ‘Reasonable creature in being’ means ‘a human being’, what are the two problems of this area?
- Is a foetus in the womb a ‘reasonable creature in being’?
- Is a victim still considered to be alive (and so a ‘reasonable creature in being’) if they are ‘brain-dead’ but being kept alive by a life-support machine?
Can you be charged with homicide/ murder if its the killing of a foetus?
- Homicide cannot be charged in the killing of a foetus
- However, where the foetus is injured and the child is born alive but then dies as a result of the injuries, this CAN be actus reus for murder or manslaughter
How does brain death work within murder cases?
- Its not certain whether a person who is ‘brain-dead’ would be considered as a ‘reasonable creature in being’ or not
- Brain death is reasonable grounds for doctors to switch off life support
- However if the intention of the person switching off the machine is to deliberately kill the victim, then they CAN be guilty of murder
What is the ‘Year and a day’ rule used for before and after the 1996 Law Reform Act?
- The rule is used to state that unless the victim died as a result of an attack within a year and a day, then the defendant could not be charged
- The Law Reform Act (1996) changed this, so that now, there is no time limit, however if it is more than 3 years, the consent of the Attorney General is needed for the prosecution.
What is the difference between ‘illegal’ and ‘unlawful’?
Illegal is if something is illegal you’re breaking the law whereas unlawful is your actions are not supported by law
What makes an act not unlawful under a murder case?
- If the killing is done in self defence or defence of another, then it is not unlawful
- This is statutory in s 3(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1967 – ‘a person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime’.
What is a full defence?
if you successfully argue it in court you will get a full acquittal and be set free
What must the defendant be judged on when deciding if a full defence is applicable?
- The defendant must be judged on the facts as they genuinely believed them to be and what they believed to be necessary in an unexpected moment of anguish
- This is so even when they might be mistaken by the facts
What is explained by the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 on level of force?
The level of force used is explained as the amount of force the defendant felt at the time was necessary to protect themselves or another
What is the mens rea of murder?
Express malice aforethought which is the intent to kill or implied malice aforethought which is the intention to cause grievous bodily harm e.g. Cunningham (1981)
Can there be mens rea when there’s a killing of a foetus?
- It is not possible to have the mens rea to kill a foetus
- The child must have been expelled from the mother’s body before this can happen.
- E.g. Attorney-General’s Reference (No 3 of 1994) (1997
What occurred after the Moloney (1985) case?
- Rules were set out called the ‘Moloney rules’ that were:
- ‘How likely is death the consequence of the defendants actions?’ which is a objective test, and
- ‘How aware is the defendant of the consequences?’ which is a subjective test
How did Nedrick (1986) help change the way juries think when trying to decide if mens rea was present?
- The Court of Appeal suggested juries ask themselves two questions:
1. How probable was the consequence which resulted from the defendant’s voluntary act?
2. Did they foresee the consequence? - The jury are not entitled to infer the necessary intention unless they feel that death or serious injury was a virtual certainty as a result of the act.
How did Woollin (1998) developed what was made in Nedrick (1986)?
- The House of Lords disapproved of the 2 questions, but approved the direction in Nedrick
- They suggested switching the word ‘infer’ to ‘find’
- In other words, the defendant needed to appreciate that death or serious injury was a virtual certainty for the jury to FIND the necessary intention.
How does transferred Malice work in cases?
- If D fires a shot at Victim 1 (V1) and kills V2, they are guilty of murder.
- The intention may have been to kill V1, but it is transferred to V2
What are the rules of force that can justify the defendants actions?
- Self defence/defence of others/prevention of crime are used to justify D’s actions.
- Force must be reasonable in the circumstances.
- D must have genuinely believed this to be situation, even if mistaken.
- Personality disorder cannot be taken into account.
- The amount of force must not be excessive in the circumstances D believed them to be (if deemed excessive, then the defence will fail e.g. Clegg (1995), and Martin (Anthony) (2002))
What is diminished responsibility?
Introduced as a partial defence in Homicide Act 1957
A person is not to be convicted of murder if they were suffering from an abnormality of mental functioning which?
(a) Arose from a recognised medical condition.
(b) Substantially impaired their ability to understand the nature of their conduct, form a rational judgment or exercise self-control.
(c) Provides an explanation for D’s acts and omissions in doing or being party to the killing
What is abnormality of mental functioning?
- A state of mind so different from that of ordinary human beings that the reasonable man would term it abnormal
- E.g. Byrne (1960)
What does abnormality of mental function cover?
- Covers both psychological and physical conditions.
- Covers any recognised mental disorder.
- Medical evidence must be provided however
What must abnormality of mental functioning be to be a successful defence in court?
- It has to be substantial enough that impaired the defendant’s mental responsibility for their act.
- E.g. In Byrne, the appeal court let the jury make that decision and in Lloyd (1967), it was held that substantial did not have to mean total.
What must be substantially impaired for the defence to be successful?
- The ability to understand the nature of their conduct - automatic state, delusional, severe learning difficulties
- The ability to form a rational judgement - paranoia. schizophrenia, battered women’s syndrome
- The ability to exercise self-control
What must the defendant prove when claiming abnormality of mental functioning?
- That it provides an explanation for their acts/omissions
- There must be some casual connection between D’s abnormality of function and the killing.
- Abnormality of function need not be the only factor but it still needs to be significant.
- If D was intoxicated at the time, then there is no defence of diminished responsibility if they were not suffering from an abnormality of mental functioning. E.g. Dowds (2012)
- If there is abnormality of function in addition to intoxication, this may make a difference. E.g. Hendy (2006)
What is the new approach juries must now decide on when dealing with the defence of abnormality of functioning?
- Did D have an abnormality of function arising from a recognised medical condition?
- Did this abnormality substantially impair the ability to understand the nature of their conduct, form a rational judgement and exercise self-control?
- Did the abnormality cause, or was a significant factor in causing D to kill V?
If all three questions can be answered of the modern approach juries decide on under abnormality of function what happens?
Then a conviction of manslaughter can be found, if not, then whilst D will have the defence of diminished responsibility available, they will be guilty of murder.
What are the 3 possibilities considered when D was also intoxicated at the time of the killing?
- Was the defendant intoxicated at the time of the killing and tries to use the defence of diminished responsibility?
- Was the defendant intoxicated and had a pre-existing abnormality of mental functioning?
- Was the intoxication due to addiction?
- E.g. R v Wood (2008)
What is ADS?
- Alcohol Dependency Syndrome
- Recognised medical condition and it means that someone who is a heavy drinker their mind is damaged
What was the 3-stage test for juries used in R v Stewart (2009) to come to a decision on abnormality of mental functioning?
- Was D suffering from an abnormality of mind (now mental functioning)? Merely having ADS is not enough, the nature and extent of it needed consideration.
- If so, was the abnormality caused by ADS?
- If so, was D’s mental responsibility substantially impaired?
- All the issues would have to be considered including the extent and seriousness of the dependency, the extent that D could control their drinking and whether they were capable of abstinence from alcohol. (Medical evidence would have to be supplied)
What is loss of control?
- Partial defence
- Replaces the former defence of provocation
- Set out in s.54 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009
Loss of control s.54(1) ‘Where a person (D) kills or is a party to the killing of another (V), D is not be convicted of murder if?
(a) D’s acts and ommissions in doing or being a party to the killing resulted from D’s loss of self-control
(b) The loss of self-control had a qualifying trigger
(c) A person of D’s sex and age, with a normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint and in the circumstances of D, might have reacted in the same or in a similar way to D’
What points are essential for the defence of loss of control to be successful?
- D must have lost self-control
- There must have been a qualifying trigger
- A person of the same sex and age would have reacted in the same way as D in the same circumstances
What did the old defence of provocation have to prove and a case to explain it?
- Had to prove that the loss of control was sudden
- In Ahluwalia (1992), an abused wife failed in her defence of provocation, because although she had endured abuse at the hands of her husband over a number of years, her act of setting him alight with a can of petrol after he had gone to bed was judged to be murder because the provocation was not immediate
- She was granted an appeal on the basis of diminished responsibility however
What are the factors that must be present in order for there to be a qualifying trigger for the defence of loss of control?
- D must have a fear of serious violence from V or another identified person. Or…
- A thing or things done or said which constitute circumstances of an extremely grave character or have caused D to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged
What did the old law of provocation not include?
Did not include a defence of fear of violence e.g. Martin (Anthony) (2002)
What does the new law of loss of control have supporting the ‘fear of violence’?
- The new law is clear though that the fear of violence has to be specific either by the victim or another identified person. A general fear of violence isn’t enough
- Dawes (2013) failed because his loss of control was not triggered from a fear of violence when he himself he had triggered the violence in the first place
Under s.55 what points have to be shown if D is relying on things said or done as a defence?
- They were of an ‘extremely grave character’ and
- They caused D to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged
- The question of whether the circumstances are extremely grave and whether D had a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged should be judged objectively
- E.g. Zebedee (2012) when a man who had killed his 94 year old incontinent father with Alzheimer’s disease had his conviction upheld because under the 2009 Act, the jury didnt deem the father’s repeated soiling of himself as either circumstances of a very grave character or having a justificable sense of being seriously wronged
Can ‘desire for revenge’ be used as a defence?
- Not considered, as was under the old provocation laws e.g. Ibrams and Gregory (1981).
- In Baillie (1995), the C of A did allow D’s appeal because even though the motive of revenge was there, there was evidence of provocation and the original trial judge should have put that to the jury.
- The 2009 Act does not take revenge into account on its own
What is necessary for D to show which the 2009 act requires in standard of self control?
- That apart from D’s sex and age, they must have demonstrated the normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint and in the circumstances of D, the reasonable man might have reacted in the same or similar way
- Apart from age and sex, no other personal characteristics, such as hot temper, are relevant in the ability to exercise self-control. E.g. A-G for Jersey v Holley (2005).
What other circumstances can be considered in deciding whether the normal person who have reacted in a similar way to D in the same circumstances under self control?
- Depression
- Epilepsy
- Any history of sexual abuse
- E.g. Gregson (2006)
How does voluntary intoxication work for D in the defence of self control?
- Voluntary intoxication is not a matter to be considered as part of D’s circumstances
- However if a sober person might have behaved in the same way in D’s circumstances, then a defence of loss of control could be used even if they were drunk.
- Finally, if a person with severe alcohol or drug problems was mercilessly taunted as the qualifying trigger, then this could form part of the circumstances for consideration
What happened in Asmelash (2013)?
The C of A refused to allow voluntary intoxication as a defence stating that if parliament had meant it to be, it would have included it in the 2009 Act.
How does reacting in the same way to voluntary intoxication when D is claiming the defence of self control work?
- In Van Dongen (2005), it was held that whilst the reasonable man would have lost self-control in similar circumstances, they would not have reacted in the same way, i.e. kicking the victim to death
- In this case, the old defence of provocation failed
What is voluntary manslaughter?
An unlawful killing where the defendant doesn’t have the intention, either direct or oblique, to kill or to cause grievous bodily harm
What’re the wide range of circumstances involuntary manslaughter covers?
- Top end, behaviour is highly blameworthy, where death or serious injury could be foreseen
- Bottom end, careless behaviour, which may be considered only just blameworthy enough
- Maximum sentence is life; minimum, non-custodial
What are the two ways of committing involuntary manslaughter?
- Unlawful act manslaughter
- Gross negligence manslaughter
What are the elements of unlawful act manslaughter?
- The defendant must do the unlawful act.
- The act must be dangerous on an objective test.
- It must cause death.
- The defendant must have the required mens rea for the unlawful act.
- A civil tort is not enough, R v Franklin (1883).
- There must be a criminal unlawful act, R v Lamb (1967).
- An omission is also not enough, R v Lowe (1973).
- Along with non-fatal offences, any criminal act can lead to finding unlawful act manslaughter. E.g. Arson, R v Goodfellow (1986)
How does the level dangerousness affect the outcome of a case under involuntary manslaughter?
- In an objective test, the act must be dangerous and if a sober and reasonable person recognises some harm relating to the risk, then this is satisfied. R v Church (1965).
- It is not necessary for the defendant to realise the risk of harm. R v Larkin (1943)
What must ‘risk of harm’ refer to under involuntary manslaughter?
It must refer to physical harm, R v Dawson (1985), but the defendant must also be aware of the victim’s frailty and the consequences of physical harm to them, R v Watson (1989).
Does level of dangerousness impact burglary cases?
Burglary is not usually dangerous, although if carried out in a particular way, this can be taken into account, R v Bristow Dunn and Delay (2013)
How does causation work under the unlawful act manslaughter?
Causation is the same for murder, although an intervening act breaks the chain of causation
What is the mens rea of involuntary manslaughter?
- When D has no intention of committing murder but caused the death of another through recklessness or criminal negligence
- For the required mens rea for the unlawful act, it’s not necessary for the defendant to realise the act is either dangerous or indeed, unlawful.
- E.g. DPP v Newbury and Jones (1976)
What is the actus reus of involuntary manslaughter?
When D breaches a duty of care in a manner which gives rise to an obvious and serious risk of death, is grossly negligent and which caused the death of a human being
What is gross negligence manslaughter?
- When the defendant owes the victim a duty of care but breaches it in such a serious way that the victim dies
- E.g. R v Adomako (1994)
What are the elements of gross negligence manslaughter set out in R v Adomako (1994)?
- The existence of a duty of care by the defendant towards the victim
- A breach of that duty of care which causes death
- Gross negligence which the jury considers to be so bad as to be criminal
Why is duty of care in gross negligence manslaughter
Must exist for the purposes of the criminal law
Under duty of care what is the 3 stage Caparo test?
- Proximity of relationship
- Reasonable foreseeability of harm
- Is it fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care?
What can form the basis of gross negligence manslaughter?
Acts or omissions e.g. R v Singh (1999)
How does the creation of a state of affairs work in a duty of care?
- This is when the defendant creates a situation where a duty of care will exist and has become life-threatening and has broken the duty
- E.g. R v Evans (2009)
What is an example of a case whereas owes a duty because I’d a relationship with the victim?
In R v Stone & Dobinson (1977), the defendants, who were mentally slow, were convicted of manslaughter because they had failed in their duty to care for an anorexic sister
What must happen for someone to be convicted of gross negligence manslaughter?
- The negligence has to be extreme (gross).
- E.g. In R v Bateman (1925) and Adomako (1994)
- A test must be established to determine that the accused’s actions go beyond a matter of compensation and that they become a criminal matter.
What is a problem with the test of gross negligence manslaughter?
- That it is up to juries to decide the appropriate standard for ‘gross’ negligence which can obviously be very subjective
- In both Adomako and Stone & Dobinson, whilst the ‘risk of death’ was not clear, the test was expressed as the risk being to the ‘health and welfare’ of the victim.
- Confusion over ‘risk of death’ has now been cleared up by the Court of Appeal, R v Misra and Srivastava (2004).
What is assault?
An act that causes the fear of unlawful force
What is battery?
The application of unlawful force to another either through intention or recklessness
How is assault defined in Nelson (2013)?
Defines assault as something of a physical kind (vocal threat, silent phone call, imitating a violent action etc) that causes somebody to think that they are about to be struck
To be convicted of assault, what is required?
- Some act or words
- E.g. R v Constanza (1997) - letters can be an assault and R v Ireland (1997)
What are the actus reus and mens rea of assault?
- The actus reus is the fear of unlawful violence
- The mens rea is causing fear
What are the actus reus and mens rea of battery?
- The actus reus is the application of unlawful violence
- The men’s rea is the intention of doing so
What does the victim need to think about force under an assault and battery case?
- Needs to think that the threat of force is real and possible
- E.g. R v Lamb (1967)
- The force threatened must also be unlawful. If it is lawful, then there is no offence of common assault