Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

A2 Law - Involuntary Manslaughter > Unlawful Act Manslaughter > Flashcards

Unlawful Act Manslaughter Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
MBE flashcards MPRE flashcards Civil Procedure 1L flashcards
1
Q

What are the three essential elements to this offence?

A

1) an unlawful act must have been carried out
2) the unlawful act must have been dangerous
3) the unlawful act must have caused death

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

What type of law must the unlawful act fall under?

A

It must be a crime and part of criminal law - not tort.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

What established that the unlawful act must be a crime and not a tort?

A

The case of Franklin 1883

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

When was the case of franklin?

A

1883

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

What case was in 1883?

A

Franklin

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

What did the case of franklin 1883 establish?

A

That an unlawful act must be a crime and not tort but the act must be criminal in itself CHECK THIE

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Why must the unlawful act be criminal in itself and not just a crime?

A

Because it is something dove negligently

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Which case illustrates all three elements of unlawful act manslaughter AND the conviction was upheld?

A

Larkin 1943

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

When was the case of Larkin?

A

1943

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

What case was in 1943?

A

Larkin

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

What happened in the case of Larkin 1943?

A

The defendant waved a razor at a man to scare him. The mans drunk mistress fell against the razor. Her throat was cut and she died.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

What was the out come of Larkin 1943?

A

The defendants manslaughter conviction was upheld by the court of appeal

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

How does the case of Larkin 1943 illustrate the three elements of unlawful act manslaughter?

A

There was an unlawful act (intentionally assaulting the man) which was dangerous as someone was likely to be injured and it resulted in a death.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

What do the three elements of unlawful act manslaughter help establish?

A

The actus reus

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

What cases demonstrate that just because the defendants act caused the death it does not mean they will automatically be convicted?

A

R v Lamb

R v Simon Slingsby

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

What happened in the case of R v Lamb 1967?

A

The defendant accidentally killed the victim whilst they were messing around with a revolver. He was found not guilty because there

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

When was the case of R v Lamb?

A

1967

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

What case was in 1967?

A

R v Lamb

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

What is the main principle of unlawful act manslaughter?

A

A dangerous, unlawful act was carried out which led to the victims death

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

What is manslaughter?

A

Murder without intention

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

What does not constitute for unlawful act manslaughter?

A

An omission, there must be an act

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

What case illustrates that an omission does not constitute for unlawful act manslaughter?

A

R v Lowe (1973)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

What case happened in 1973?

A

R v Lowe

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

What year was the case of R v Lowe?

A

1973

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

What happened in the case of R v Lowe (1973)?

A

A child died as a result of neglect from the defendant.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

What was the outcome of R v Lowe (1973)?

A

The defendant couldn’t be convicted of unlawful act manslaughter as there was no positive act, only an omission

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

How is it judged if an unlawful act was dangerous?

A

The church test

28
Q

What is the church test?

A

The test to establish of a reasonable sober person would consider the act to be dangerous

29
Q

What is the point of law in R v Lowe (1973)

A

That there must be a positive act for an unlawful act manslaughter conviction - an omission will not suffice.

30
Q

What case is related to the unlawful act being dangerous?

A

Church (1966)

31
Q

What case took place in 1966?

A

Church

32
Q

In what year did the case of church take place?

A

1966

33
Q

What did the judge do in the case of Church (1966)?

A

Create the church test which helped to establish if the unlawful act was dangerous

34
Q

What did Judge Davies say in the case of Church (1966)?

A

“An act is dangerous if it was such as all sober and reasonable people would inevitably recognise must subject the person to at least some…albeit not serious hard’

35
Q

Which judge defined the church test?

A

Edmond Davies

36
Q

What is the problem of the definition of dangerous set out by judge Edmund Davies?

A

It is very broad and objective. Different members of the jury may have different opinions of ‘harm’ leading to inconsistencies of convictions.

37
Q

What are the problems with the church test being objective?

A

It does not take into account the characteristics of the accused
It is assumes the reasonable person has the same knowledge as the defendant which can lead to unjust rulings

38
Q

What does the case of R v Dawson (1985) illustrate?

A

That the ‘reasonable man’ has the same knowledge as the defendant and this goes against the the thin skull rule.

39
Q

What case is relevant to the assumption that the reasonable person has the same knowledge as the defendant?

A

R v Dawson (1985)

40
Q

What year was the case of R v Dawson?

A

1985

41
Q

What case happened in 1985?

A

R v Dawson

42
Q

What happened in the case of R v Dawson (1985)?

A

The defendants attempted to rob a petrol station but ran as soon as the clerk rang the alarm. They were unaware the victim had a serious heart condition and he died.

43
Q

What was the outcome of R v Dawson (1985)?

A

The conviction was quashed as the defendants and a reasonable bystander would not have known. They claimed this was not dangerous in the sense church used.

44
Q

What is the problems with the ruling of R v Dawson (1985)?

A

The legal principle used in the case undermines that of the thin skull rule ‘but for the actions of the victim’. This leads to debate.

45
Q

What must the prosecution prove to get a unlawful manslaughter conviction?

A

There must be a causal link between the defendants dangerous unlawful act and the defendants death

46
Q

What case is relevant to a casual link between the unlawful dangerous act and the death of the victim?

A

R v Johnstone (2007)

47
Q

What case happened in 2007?

A

R v Johnstone

48
Q

In what year did the case of R v Johnstone take place?

A

2007

49
Q

What happened in the case of R v Johnstone (2007)?

A

The victim was playing cricket with his son when a group of around 20 youth started shouting, spitting and throwing stones at him. Shortly after the victim died of a heart attack caused by a rush of adrenaline.

50
Q

What was the outcome of R v Johnstone (2007)?

A

The courts and pathologists struggled to distinguish the cause of death as the victim had a pre-existing heart condition so the decision was not left to the jury. It was also unclear if the spitting and shouting was dangerous and caused the heart attack. As a result, the defendants convictions were quashed.

51
Q

What problems did the case of R v Johnstone (2007) cause?

A

Many protested that the ruling was incredibly unjust and that the victim did not receive proper justice. It was awful for public policy and surprising as public policy usually prevails.

52
Q

Haven’t put criminal liability point on page 5 thing in add in depending on how question writing goes

A

GBH

53
Q

What is the men’s rea for unlawful act manslaughter?

A

The mens rea of the crime which lead to the death

54
Q

If it is an offence of strict liability how does the mens rea differ?

A

The defendant may need no mens rea at all to be prosecuted of unlawful act manslaughter

55
Q

Provide an example of mens rea and unlawful act manslaughter…

A

In the case of Larkin, the mens rea was that of assault

56
Q

How much mens rea is required for unlawful act manslaughter?

A

It can range from very little (or even none in crimes of strict liability) to just below the mens rea before murder

57
Q

Briefly what are the evaluation points for unlawful act manslaughter?

A

Omissions
Low level of mens rea
Church test is very strict

58
Q

Explain the omissions evaluation point…

A

It could be argued there should be liability for omissions, if someone deliberately omits to doing something that causes death then perhaps they should be held liable.

59
Q

What is the biggest criticism of involuntary act manslaughter?

A

The low level of mens rea required

60
Q

Explain the low level of mens rea required evaluation point…

A

Someone baby be convicted of manslaughter even though they had not considered the risk of any physical harm which seems harsh

61
Q

Explain the church test evaluation point…

A

It is very strict. The defendant does not have to have considered the act was dangerous but the reasonable person has to see a risk of some harm, not even serious harm

62
Q

Who criticised the church test and what did they say?

A

The law commission criticised this in 1996 saying it was inappropriate to convict a defendant of homicide where they ought to have seen at least a risk of some harm

63
Q

When did the law commission criticise the church test?

A

1996

64
Q

Who criticised the church test?

A

The law commission

65
Q

What did the law commission say about the church test?

A

That it was inappropriate to convict a defendant of homicide where they ought to have seen at least a risk of some harm

A2 Law - Involuntary Manslaughter (4 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions