Unit 4 - Unlawful act Manslaughter Flashcards
What are the three elements of the AR of unlawful act manslaughter?
A. Do an unlawful act
B. That is dangerous
C. Which causes the victims death
What is an unlawful act?
A crime with a men’s Rea of intention or recklessness (excludes negligence). It could be assault, burglary or also theft. MUST BE A POSITIVE ACT AND NOT AN OMISSION.
What qualifies as a dangerous act?
MUST ALSO BE DANGEROUS - R v Church held that the act must be dangerous from the point of view of the ordinary reasonable person (objective). The risk must be to a person.
THE REASONABLE PERSON MUST also have the knowledge that defendant had had they been present at the scene and watched the whole act being performed.
What is the final part of unlawful act manslaughter AR(causes victims death)?
The final part is that it must cause victims death. The usual rules of causation must apply. Factual and legal causation.
What is the men’s Rea of unlawful act manslaughter?
It changes depending on the unlawful act
How to convict someone of gross negligence manslaughter?
A. The defendant owed the victim a duty of care
B: the defendant breached that duty
C. The breach caused the death of the victim; and
D. The defendants conduct was grossly negligent.
GN: how to find if there is a duty of care?
Normally it is an established duty. However new situations may arise such as in the case of r v Willoughby, where it is determined that it is up to a jury once the judge has decided there is enough evidence.
GN: how to find a breach of duty?
This can be through a positive act, an omission or negligent behaviour. For example, choosing not to seek medical assistance after supplying someone drugs and seeing them overdose.
A DEFENDANT WILL BREACH THEIR DUTY OF CARE WHERE THEIR CONDUCT FALLS BELOW THAT OF A REASONABLE PERSON (including those of a special knowledge or expertise).
GN: causation rules?
It must be shown that the defendants breach caused the death of the victim and the normal rules of causation apply.
GN: what does it mean that the act must be grossly negligent?
The breach must be sufficiently bad to warrant a criminal penalty. R v Adomako:the duty must assess if the defendants conduct was such a departure from the proper standard of care involving a risk of death that it should be considered criminal. IT IS UP TO JURY TO DECIDE WHETHER THE D’s CONDUCT WAS SO BAD. Risk of death is a key factor.
R v Rose - foreseeability is based on wheat the defendant actually knew at the time of breach. Subjective.
Does gross negligence manslaughter create liability for omissions?
Yes because they do not need any criminal state of mind like intention or recklessness.
Can dangerous driving lead to an unlawful act manslaughter charge?
No, because dangerous driving is a crime of negligence
What do dangerous driving offences normally amount to?
Causing death by dangerous driving lead- section 1 RTA. This is less serious than a gross negligence charge, in which the risk of death needs to be considered.
Is intoxication a defense?
Simply being intoxicated is not a defence to a criminal charge and is no excuse for actions that would be criminal if sober.
When can intoxication amount to a defense?
If it causes the defendant to lack the required men’s Rea for the specific offence. It is not quite a defence as it just mitigates the men’s Rea.
Two more factors must be considered:
1. Whether it was voluntary.
2. Basic versus specific intent crime - DPP v Majewski - evidence of drunkenness may aquit those in crimes of specific intent. But doesn’t provide an exemption from liability. Voluntary intoxication can never be a defense to a crime of basic intent because the act of getting drunk was reckless.
Does involuntary intoxication amount to a defense?
Involuntary intoxication may be a defence to any crime if the defendant lacked the required men’s Rea. Includes prescription drugs. The jury must be convinced that the drug was non-dangerous and the defendants reaction was unpredictable and not normally associated with the drug.
What about drunken mistakes made in a basic intent crime?
A lack of men’s Rea due to voluntary intoxication is not a defence to such crimes ( they are reckless so any mistake they make they are still liable for).
What about drunken mistakes in a crime of specific intent?
O’grady - if they had the actus reus and men’s Rea of murder, but believed that they needed to defend themselves, their defence of self defence will fail.
Intoxication and lawful excuse:
Jaggard v Dickinson - a drunken mistake can support a lawful excuse defence for a basic intent crime like criminal damage. Focuses on the genuineness of the belief.
