Unlawful Act Manslaughter Flashcards
What is the key distinction between murder and unlawful act manslaughter?
A. Unlawful act manslaughter requires an intention to kill
B. Murder only involves unlawful omissions
C. Manslaughter always involves intoxication
D. Manslaughter lacks the mens rea for murder
D. Manslaughter lacks the mens rea for murder
Explanation: In unlawful act manslaughter, the defendant does not have the intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm, which is required for murder.
What must the unlawful act in unlawful act manslaughter be?
A. A lawful act performed carelessly
B. A civil wrong
C. A reckless driving offence
D. A criminal offence in itself
D. A criminal offence in itself
Explanation: The unlawful act must be a criminal act, not merely civil or negligent. See R v Franklin.
What level of harm must the unlawful act expose the victim to?
A. Risk of emotional distress
B. Risk of financial loss
C. Risk of serious injury
D. Risk of some physical harm
D. Risk of some physical harm
Explanation: The objective test from R v Church requires only that a sober and reasonable person would recognise a risk of some physical harm.
D slaps V in the face during an argument. V falls, hits their head and dies. What is the most likely offence?
A. Murder
B. No offence due to lack of intention
C. Unlawful act manslaughter
D. Gross negligence manslaughter
C. Unlawful act manslaughter
Explanation: A slap constitutes battery, which is a criminal act. If it causes death and is objectively dangerous, this satisfies unlawful act manslaughter
D omits to give their baby food over several days. The child dies. What is the appropriate charge?
A. Unlawful act manslaughter
B. Battery
C. Gross negligence manslaughter
D. Common assault
C. Gross negligence manslaughter
Explanation: Omissions cannot amount to unlawful act manslaughter. Failing to feed a child is more likely charged under gross negligence manslaughter.
D gives heroin to V in a syringe and V self-injects. V dies. What is the legal outcome after R v Kennedy?
A. D is guilty of murder
B. D is guilty of unlawful act manslaughter
C. D is not guilty due to voluntary, informed self-injection
D. D is guilty only if he injected V himself
C. D is not guilty due to voluntary, informed self-injection
Explanation: In R v Kennedy, the House of Lords confirmed that a fully informed adult who self-injects breaks the chain of causation.
D and his friend rob a store. The shopkeeper, unknown to them, has a heart condition and dies of shock. Can D be guilty?
A. No, because they didn’t know of the condition
B. Yes, if a reasonable person would foresee some harm from the robbery
C. No, because the harm was emotional
D. Yes, because it was murder
B. Yes, if a reasonable person would foresee some harm from the robbery
Explanation: In R v Dawson and R v Watson, the court held that knowledge acquired during the act is relevant. A robbery is inherently dangerous.
D throws a heavy book from a rooftop for fun. It hits and kills a passer-by. What offence is D likely guilty of?
A. Murder
B. Unlawful act manslaughter
C. No offence
D. Assault occasioning actual bodily harm
B. Unlawful act manslaughter
Explanation: Throwing the book is a deliberate criminal act (at least battery or criminal damage), and death was caused. Dangerousness is judged objectively.
D is driving recklessly and kills a pedestrian. Can D be convicted of unlawful act manslaughter?
A. Yes, because driving was dangerous
B. No, because driving is a lawful act performed carelessly
C. Yes, if he had previous convictions
D. Only if the victim was elderly
B. No, because driving is a lawful act performed carelessly
Explanation: As confirmed in Andrews v DPP, a lawful act (like driving) cannot be the basis of unlawful act manslaughter even if done negligently.
D injects V with heroin after V asks him to do it. V dies. What is the legal position?
A. D is guilty of unlawful act manslaughter
B. D is not guilty if V consented
C. D is only guilty of drug supply
D. D is guilty of murder
A. D is guilty of unlawful act manslaughter
Explanation: R v Cato confirms that injecting another person with drugs constitutes an unlawful and dangerous act. V’s consent is not a defence.
D punches V once. V falls, hits their head and dies. D says he didn’t mean to cause serious harm. Can D be liable?
A. Yes, because a single punch is a criminal and dangerous act
B. No, because V’s death was not foreseeable
C. No, because D only intended a minor act
D. Yes, only if D had a motive
A. Yes, because a single punch is a criminal and dangerous act
Explanation: Even one punch can be objectively dangerous and lead to liability if it causes death. D’s motive is irrelevant to manslaughter.
D pushes V, who falls into traffic and is killed. D claims he didn’t foresee any harm. What is the result?
A. D is guilty of unlawful act manslaughter
B. D is not guilty as harm wasn’t foreseeable
C. D is guilty only if he knew the road was busy
D. D is not guilty if it was a prank
A. D is guilty of unlawful act manslaughter
Explanation: The test for danger is objective, not based on D’s foresight. If a sober and reasonable person would see some risk, D is liable.
