Unlawful Act Manslaughter

Question 1

What is unlawful Act manslaughter sometimes called?

Answer 1

Constructive manslaughter

Question 2

What is not needed for involuntary manslaughter?

Answer 2

Intent

Question 3

2 types of involuntary manslaughter to study.

Answer 3

Gross negligence manslaughter
Unlawful Act manslaughter

Question 4

What is unlawful Act manslaughter?

Answer 4

When the D causes the victim’s death whilst carrying out a criminal act that is deemed to be dangerous.

Question 5

To prove the D has committed unlawful Act manslaughter, what 3 things must be proved the D has committed?

Answer 5

1. A criminal act for which he has the necessary MR
2. Dangerous act
3. Act which caused the death

Question 6

Under the 1st test, is an omission enough for liability for UAM even if there was a duty to act?

Answer 6

No - has to be an act

Question 7

Which case shows that an omission is not enough for liability for UAM, even if there was a duty to act?

Answer 7

Lowe (1973)

Question 8

Facts of Lowe (1973)

Answer 8

D neglected child. Child dies. Not liable for UAM as an omission

Question 9

Under the 1st test, is a civil wrong enough for liability under the UAM?

Answer 9

No - it has to be a criminal act

Question 10

Which case shows that a civil wrong is not enough for liability under the UAM?

Answer 10

Franklin (1883)

Question 11

Facts of Franklin (1883).

Answer 11

D threw a box off a pier which hit a swimmer, causing death.
Prosecution said the action compromised the tort of trespass to the stall keeper’s property.
Trial judge said tort was not enough for UAM

Question 12

Under the 1st test, what has to be present for there to be an unlawful Act?

Answer 12

Mens rea

Question 13

Cases that says mens rea has to be present for UAM.

Answer 13

Church
Lamb (1967)

Question 14

What did Davies J say in the case of Church about mens rea?

Answer 14

‘In relation to manslaughter, a degree of mens rea has become recognised as essential.’

Question 15

Facts of Lamb (1967)

Answer 15

Two men messing around with a revolver which goes off causing death.
Neither realised it could go off so no unlawful Act.

Question 16

3 rules for 1st test of UAM.

Answer 16

1. Has to be Act not omission
2. Must be a criminal act-civil wrong is not enough
3. Mens rea has to be present

Question 17

Give an example of a criminal act which is dangerous and one that is not dangerous.

Answer 17

Punching someone next to busy traffic.

Stealing a computer from an empty house.

Question 18

What does it mean for a criminal act to be dangerous under the 2nd test?

Answer 18

It is dangerous if a reasonable person in the D’s position would have foreseen the risk of some physical harm.

Question 19

Case for definition of what is dangerous under the 2nd test.

Answer 19

Church (1966)
Later confirmed by Newbury and Jones

Question 20

What did the Court of Appeal say in Church (1966)?

Answer 20

The act is dangerous when “all sober and reasonable people would inevitably recognise must subject the other person to, at least, the risk of some harm resulting therefrom, albeit not serious harm.”

Question 21

Is emotional disturbance enough for 2nd test?

Answer 21

No - must be physical harm.

Question 22

Cases for 2nd test.

Answer 22

Dawson (1985)
Watson (1989)

Question 23

Facts of Dawson (1985).

Answer 23

Men try to rob petrol station with pickaxes and a fake gun.
Cashier already had heart disease and the shock gave him a heart attack.
The reasonable person would not know he had a heart condition so would not know he had a heart condition so would no know there was risk of “harm”

Question 24

Facts of Watson (1989).

Answer 24

Burglars break into an old man’s house causing him to die of a heart attack.
The reasonable man would have seen the “risk of some harm” to someone so old.
NB though the Ds got off on an issue of causation.

Question 25

What are the rules of establishing whether an act is dangerous for the purpose of UAM not to be confused with?

Answer 25

The rules of causation.

Question 26

Other key points about 2nd test.

Answer 26

1. No requirements that the unlawful Act must be directed at the victim
2. No requirement that the reasonable person should foresee the “sort” of harm which occurs, as long as they would foresee the risk of some harm

Question 27

What rules of causation apply for the 3rd test?

Answer 27

Normal

Question 28

What needs to be remembered about the cause of the victims death in law (legal causation)?

Answer 28

There can be more than 1 cause

Question 29

Which case shows that there can be more than 1 cause for the death of the V in law?

Answer 29

Shodid (2003)

Question 30

Facts of Shodid (2003)

Answer 30

D with one group of men, attacks V at railway station.
V forced onto tracks.
Other attackers (not the D) stopped him climbing back on platform and he was hit by a train.
Held that the D’s actions were a substantial cause of death (did not need to be the only cause)

Question 31

Rules around supplying drugs and causation as coming from the Lord in Kennedy (2007).

Answer 31

“…informed adults of sound mind are treated as autonomous beings able to make their own decisions and how they will act.”

Question 32

Facts of Kennedy (2007).

Answer 32

V had asked D for something to help him sleep.
D prepared syringe of heroin and gave it to the V, who injected himself and died in an hour.
D convicted and then lost his appeal in the CoA.
Only finally overturned in the HoL.

Question 33

Does the second test apply the normal rules of causation?

Answer 33

No-do not apply

Question 34

Does the 3rd test apply the normal rules of causation?

Answer 34

Yes-do apply