Section C Flashcards
what is an unlawful killing
where the defendant does not have the intention to kill or cause GBH; the lack of intention is the main difference
what is Voluntary manslaughter
intent to kill - LC or DR reduces it
what is involuntary manslaughter
no intent to kill but actions cause it
Unlawful act manslaughter
Liability for the death is built up or constructed from the facts that D has performed a dangerous act; this makes the D liable even though he did not realise his act would cause death or injury.
law a01 comes from franklin and church
what did franklin case establish?
R v Franklin (1883) established that D must perform an unlawful act
Act must cause death (actus reus) and the D must have the required mens rea for the unlawful act (i.e. assault
what did church case establish?
R v Church (1966) established the objective nature of the dangerous act
“the unlawful act must be such as all reasonable people would inevitably recognise must subject the other person to at least’ (ex causing death in franklin)
what happens if there is an intervening act breaking the chain of causation?
D cannot be liable for manslaughter; this has caused issues in many cases…
what must the unlawful act cause ?
Unlawful acts must cause death; rules on causation are the same - if there is an intervening act
R v Cato (1976)
what happened in Cato?
D injected the victim with heroin and the victim died; Cato was guilty of manslaughter (this act was contrary to OAPA 1861)
Dalby (1982) and Kennedy (2007)
what happened in Dalby, and Kennedy?
> Causation is broken if D prepares or supplies the drug BUT V injects themselves; D can only be guilty if he was involved in administering the injection
what was established in Rogers (2003)
> If D holds the victim or places and holds a belt around the victim’s arm they cannot be guilty of manslaughter unless they adminster drug
Harm (Church)
church established the harm principle
what was established in Dawson (1985)
Jury directed to consider the possibility of physical harm as opposed to emotional disturbance (scaring to death cannot be murder)
R v Larkin (1943)
D cut and killed a female who was drunk and fell onto his blade while he was threatening another man with it (was given manslaughter)
R v Goodfellow (1986)
D set fire to his house to be re-housed; kills his wife child and another; establishes that there is no need for the unlawful act to be aimed at the victim(s); can be indirect - established in Larkin
Mens rea in unlawful acts?
D must also have the mens rea for the unlawful act. it is not necessary to realise if their act was unlawful or dangerous, or for them to have the mens rea for murder
confirmed in Newbury and jones
what happened in Newbury and Jones (1976)
d pushed a paving stone off a bridge that struck a driver in the train.
this case confirmed that D did not have to realise their act was unlawful or dangeroys or have mens rea for murder
Khan and Khan case established? (drugs dealers didnt take care of OD etc)
Court of Appeal quashed the convictions for unlawful act manslaughter but thought there could be a duty of care to summon medical assistance in certain terms (presented as an obiter; could open up the floodgates on the definition of duty)
how is a defendant convicted of Gross negligence manslaughter?
where D has been so grossly negligent that criminal liability is appropriate
how is GNM defined in categories to convict?
- Does D have a duty towards the victim and are they in breach of the duty
did the breach cause death
should the conduct be characterised as criminal
where does the AO1 of GNM come from?
Adomako
what was the case of adomako?
Adomako, a doctor, failed to notice that an endotracheal tube had become disconnected during eye surgery; he had been distracted by a problem but failed to perform basic checks that would have revealed the disconnection.
HOL upheld conviction and established a test
The test from adomako requires establishing that the defendant:?
Owed a duty of care to the deceased that was breached causing death.
the breach has to be so grossly negligent as to be criminal
Bateman (1925) what was established/outcome
established d can be negligent but has to be grossly negiligent
what was the bateman case
Conviction was quashed because he carried out the normal procedure any competent doctor would have; supported in Adomako (1994) and decided that the jury has to consider the seriousness of the breach
> Issues arise over appropriate standards for gross negligence (inconsistencies; little guidance as well).
where does Duty of care come from?
donoghue and stevenson,
you must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour’ (AO1)
what case was duty of care breached ?
established ‘duty of care in donoghue and stevenson, but duty being breached was also in stone and dobinson
Stone and Dobinson
duty to his aunt as theyd voluntarily taken her into their care
what was the case of Wacker (2002)
> D knew the safety of the immigrants depended on his own actions in relation to the vent and clearly assumed the duty of care.
v was party in an illegal act, this means that V could not have made a claim; court said this was irrelevant and public policy demanded that this situation was criminal
judge referred to the “ordinary principles of the law of negligence”
what is an omission?
failure to act
what was the case of Singh (1999)
> Courts recognised a duty to manage and maintain property where a faulty gas fire caused the death of tenants.
Litchfield (1998)
> Held that the master of a sailing ship owed a duty of care (does not have to be a contractual duty like dobinson case) when he knew that the engine may fail due to contamination of fuel.
what is the Willoughby case?
Court said a duty could be owed even though they were engaged in criminal activity Court also said the judge should have directed the jury on unlawful act manslaughter rather than gross negligence manslaughter; either could be appropriate
what was established in khan case ?
No duty found in Khan but debatable in Dias
For questions on whether a duty is owed what should you state?
state the rules for gross negligence manslaughter
what did the case of Lidar (2000) establish/bring back?
- Brought back the idea of reckless manslaughter in England (After Adomako and Khan it seemed to be abolished but brought back in lidar)
what was the case of lidar?
> V was dragged under the wheel of a car when he had half his arm in the car and the D decided to drive; considered reckless manslaughter but could have been gross negligence manslaughter
whats wrong with having both GNM and subjective recklessness manslaughter?
Questions arise over the necessity of having two categories
- Can use the idea of a recommendation to get rid of the third type of manslaughter (reckless) for ‘fault’ essays
Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007
holds companies accountable for serious managment failuries resulting in fatalities.
cannot prosecute individuals, only organisations
only applies when organisations conduct falls far below what can be reasonably expected of them resulting in a gross breach of their duty of care
penalty is fine with no cap, allocated by judge
to be convicted as an organisation for corporal manslaughter, the Prosecution must prove?
-the organisation owed a duty of care to the deceased that was grossly breached. the breach was systemic(not due to individual error) and the breach was also a substantial factor in death
Corporate manslaughter is a stand-alone criminal offense meaning?
not a part of health and safety law; health and safety law and the offense of gross negligence manslaughter still apply to individuals within the organisation.
Cotswold (2011)
Cotswold was convicted of corporate manslaughter after an employee died when a trench collapsed on him; fined £3850
Deco-Pak (2022)
- Deco-Pak was convicted of corporate manslaughter after a worker was killed by a robotic packing arm. The company was fined £700000 and the CEO faced a charge of gross negligence manslaughter.
Princes Sporting Club (2013)
Princes were convicted of corporate manslaughter after an 11-year-old girl died after falling off an attraction with the operator not noticing and hitting her
how to comply with the Corporate Manslaughter Act 2007
companies and organisations should:
keep their health and safety managment under review
pay close attention to how senior managment manages activities
JMW Farms (2012)
fined 187000 after a worker was fatally struck by an insecure metal bin that struck him after falling from a forklift truck. It was found that the forklift had incompatible dimensions with the bin
Zeebrugge disaster (1987)
- A ferry capsized shortly after leaving a port; P&O Ferries were charged with corporate manslaughter and seven employees were charged with maslaughter.
howerver, the case collapsed after the judges directed the jury to acquit the Defenndants. no one was prosecuted as the acts of negligence couldn’t be attributed ti any individual as people had covered their tracks.
Wacker (2002) (gross negligence manslaughter)
Wacker was a Dutch lorry driver involved in smuggling the migrants. He closed the air vent to the container to prevent detection. The legal significance of the case centered on whether Wacker could use the defense that the victims’ own actions (agreeing to be transported in dangerous conditions) contributed to their deaths.The court rejected this defense ruling that Wacker owed a duty of care to his passengers regardless of their illegal entry attempt
Willoughby (gross negligence manslaughter)
D faced financial difficulties due to his inability to sell a property. He enlisted the assistance of a man to set fire to the building to claim insurance. During this an explosion occurred
Khan and Khan (gross negligence manslaughter)
Defendants supplied heroin to a user who subsequently died after injecting the drug. The Court of Appeal quashed the manslaughter convictions,concluding that supplying Class A drugs to someone who then dies from their use does not constitute manslaughter. The court found that the victim’s voluntary act of injection did not break the chain of causation between the supply and the death.
Dias (gross negligence manslaughter)
Dias supplied heroin to a man who subsequently died after injecting the drug. Unlike some similar cases the prosecution in this matter relied on gross negligence manslaughter rather than unlawful act manslaughter. The Court of Appeal quashed the conviction
Misra and Another (2004) (gross negligence manslaughter)
The patient was admitted to hospital for a routine knee operation but developed toxic shock syndrome after the procedure. Despite clear signs of serious infection including an elevated temperature and abnormal blood test results
Lidar (gross negligence manslaughter/reckless)
D was involved in an altercation with V. V approached Lidar’s car and engaged in a confrontation with a passenger. As Lidar drove away V was partially in the vehicle. Lidar accelerated
Stone & Dobinson (gross negligence manslaughter)
Stone’s elderly sister came to live with the defendants. She eventually became bedridden and incapable of caring for herself. She died of malnutrition. Dobinson had on at least one occasion
Donoghue and Stevenson (1932) (gross negligence manslaughter)
Donoghue consumed a ginger beer from an opaque bottle purchased for her by a friend at a café owned by Stevenson. After drinking most of the contents she discovered the decomposed remains of a snail in the bottle. She subsequently became ill and sued the manufacturer
