Unlawful Act Manslaughter Flashcards
Definition of unlawful act manslaughter
-an unlawful act which is dangerous, causes the victims death and the dft must have the men’s rea for the unlawful act.
-liable even if did not realise death or serious injury could occur.
What type of manslaughter is UAM? What’s the definition of this?
-involuntary
-unlawful killing where dft doesn’t have the intention either direct or oblique to kill or cause GBH
What is the max sentence for UAM?
-life imprisonment
-court has discretion to impose any punishment
UA: what must the unlawful act be?
-criminal offence not a civil wrong
What is the case for UA must be criminal not civil wrongdoing?
-Franklin
-threw box into Brighton pier, hit swimmer who died, constructive manslaughter must be criminal act eg assault, burglary, arson
UA: the act need not be…
Directed against the victim or any person, can include assisting in taking drugs
Case for need not be directed against the person
-R v Rogers
-Had cider, went to get heroin for both, 2 syringes half full, V injected D with one syringe then injected self. D held belt around arm as tourniquet while injected self. Cardiac arrest and died. Judge said tourniquet was part and parcel of the unlawful act of administering heroin. Appealed - dismissed
UA: what else must the UA be?
-act not an omission
Case for act not an omission
-Lowe: convicted willfully neglecting baby son, causing manslaughter. Judge directed if found guilty of wilful neglect then also guilty MS. COA quashed MS bc wilful neglect is failure to act, must be act not omission
Case for unlawful act in general
Lamb: lamb and friend had revolver, knew had two bullets, 5 chamber cylinder. Thought wouldn’t fire unless the chambers lined up, didn’t know that the chamber moves and lines up when trigger pulled. Pulled trigger and pointed at friend killing him, no unlawful act as not assault as didn’t fear any violence.
What can form the unlawful act?
Examples of offences and the cases
-usually NFO but can be any criminal offence if involves dangerous act likely to cause injury
-Arson: goodfellas
-Criminal damage: DPP v Newbury and Jones
-Burglary: R v Watson
Dangerous: definition from case
-Church: “such that all sober and reasonable people would inevitability recognise must subject the other person t, at least, the risk of some harm resulting therefrom, albeit not serious harm”
-D knocked v unconscious, thought dead so dumped in river. Died from drowning. Judge said to consider course of conduct as one. Convicted MS
Dangerous: the risk only needs to be…
-of some harm
Cases for risk only needs to be of some harm
-Larkin: D threatened man with cut throat razor, mistress was drunk and intervened, fell on blade, cut throat and killed her. Conv for MS upheld as threatening man with razor is assault. Act dangerous as likely to injure someone
-Ball: dispute w neighbour over parking her car on his land. Car disappeared, her and two men went to house, D got shotgun and believed had blank cartridges, fired shot to frighten. Live and she died from injury. Conv MS. Risk of some harm if firing a shotgun.
Dangerous: what does the dangerous act not need to be?
-Aimed at the victim
Dangerous act doesn’t need to be aimed at the victim case
-Mitchell: D pushed old man, fell onto elderly lady who fell and broke leg. MR directed towards man, transferred to offence against old woman
Dangerous: it is enough that…
-the sober and reasonable person would foresee some harm, not the actual harm that is done
Case for don’t need to foresee the actual harm done
-R v JM and SM: JM lit cig in club, asked to leave. JM and SM left. Came back and kicked in fire door. Fight between them and doormen. V collapsed and died shortly after due to renal artery ruptured.
-not requirement to foresee the actual harm done, just foresee some harm.
-test is whether sober and reasonable would recognise it subjects deceased to some physical harm
Dangerous: dangerous act can be aimed at
-property
Case for act aimed at property
-Goodfellow: set fire to council flat so could be rehoused. Out of control and killed wife son and another. MS upheld as unlawful acts can be aimed at property
-test is if objectively dangerous in sense that likely to cause harm
Dangerous: physical harm…
Is needed, not enough just to scare or frighten someone
Case for not enough to frighten someone + contrast
-Dawson: petrol station attendant died from heart attack during attempted robbery. MS quashed as not enough just to cause fear. Must put at risk of physical harm
-However in Watson: where reasonable person aware of V’s fragility and risk of physical harm then dft liable. Elderly man died of heart attack 90 mins after being abused in home.
Substantial cause of death: rules on causation
-rules on causation same as for murder (factual, legal and intervening)
-issues if D supplied with drugs. If D also injects then no break in chain of causation (Cato) but is it supplying or administering drugs that causes death?
-if supplier does help take drugs then not liable (Kennedy - vol act)
What are the 4 case names for substantial cause of death?
-Corion-Auguiste
-Sohid
-AG ref
-R v Kennedy
Corion-Auguiste
-Firework thrown into bus station, old lady died in panic rush, D’s act direct cause
Sohid
-Original attack on V in railway station enough to be cause of resulting death even tho not main cause
AG’s ref no 4 1980
-D pushed gf in struggle and she fell over landing rail, thought killed her so dragged her up by rope tied round neck, cut up her body to dispose. Argued when pushed her thought it killed her, this was accident so he not responsible
-Couldn’t be proven when died, could’ve been the rope. Could be convicted MS even if couldn’t be shown which dangerous act caused
R v Kennedy
-D filled syringe w heroin at v’s request. Gave to victim and they injected self. Later died. MS conv quashed as v’s vol act broke chain of causation, v made vol and informed decision to inject.
Men’s rea for UAM
-MR for crime they committed, eg theft = dishonesty
-not necessary to realise what they are doing is unlawful or dangerous
-Lamb would’ve been assault or battery
Cases for MR of UAM
-DPP v Newbury and Jones: teenage boys pushed stone from bridge onto railway track as train coming. Killed guard. Guilty MS. Not necessary to prove foresaw any harm from act, can be conv provided act dangerous
-R v Le Brun: D punched wife on chin knocking out. Tried to move her and dropped her, head injuries and died. MS. Act to conceal previous act is part of same sequence of events, where actually 2nd that killed, fact MR doesn’t coincide doesn’t mean defence
