Unlawful Act Manslaughter Flashcards
Why has there been criticisms that the same offence of involuntary manslaughter covers such a wide range of behaviour?
as at the top end of the range, the behaviour of d which caused the Death can be highly blameworthy as there was a high risk of causing death or serious injury
AT the bottom end of the range, D’s behaviour may verge on carelessness and only just enough to be considered blameworthy
What is the maximum sentence for involuntary manslaughter?
life imprisonment
Although the range for the offence of involuntary manslaughter is wide, what balances this?
the fact that judges have discretion to impose any sentence which they deem suitable for the particular circumstances of the offence.
What are the 3 ways of committing involuntary manslaughter?
- unlawful act manslaughter
- gross negligence manslaughter
- reckless manslaughter
What is unlawful act manslaughter also known as?
constructive manslaughter
Why is unlawful act manslaughter also known as constructive manslaughter?
because the liability for the death is built up or constructed from the facts that D done a dangerous act which caused the death
What are the 4 elements to unlawful act manslaughter?
- D must do an unlawful act
- Act must be dangerous on an objective test
- Act must cause death
- D must have required mens rea for the unlawful act
The unlawful act must be a criminal offence. What is not enough?
a civil wrong (tort)
D threw a large box into the sea which hit and killed a swimmer. It was held that a civil wrong was not enough to create liability for unlawful act manslaughter.
What case is this?
Franklin
What happened in the case of Franklin?
D threw a large box into the sea which hit and killed a swimmer. It was held that a civil wrong was not enough to create liability for unlawful act manslaughter.
Which 2 cases illustrate that there must be a criminal unlawful act?
Lamb
Franklin
What happened in the case of lamb?
D and his friend, V played with a loaded revolver which they both did not understand. D pointed the gun and shot at V, V died. It was held that D had not done an unlawful act as pointing the gun was not an assault as V had not feared violence
An omission cannot create liability for unlawful act manslaughter. Which case showed this?
Lowe
What happened in the case of Lowe?
D was convicted of wilfully neglecting his baby son. COA quashed conviction for manslaughter as wilful neglect involved a failure to act which does not support a conviction for unlawful act manslaughter
In most cases, what will be the unlawful act, though, any criminal offence can form the unlawful act provided that it involves an act which is dangerous in the sense that it is likely to cause injury?
assault
what are 3 examples of an offence which has led to a finding of unlawful act manslaughter?
- arson (Goodfellow)
- Criminal Damage (Newbury and Jones)
- burglary (Watson)
Arson is an example of an unlawful act which would suffice for unlawful act manslaughter. What case shows this?
Good fellow
. What happened in the case of Goodfellow?
D wished to move council house accommodation and so burned his house down. Wife and son’s girlfriend died in the fire. Conviction upheld.There was no requirement that the unlawful act was directed at the victims nor that it was directed at a person.
D wished to move council house accommodation and so burned his house down. Wife and son’s girlfriend died in the fire. Conviction upheld.There was no requirement that the unlawful act was directed at the victims nor that it was directed at a person.
What case is this?
Good fellow
Criminal damage is an example of an unlawful act which would suffice for unlawful act manslaughter, what case shows this?
Newbury and Jones
What happened in the case of Newbury and Jones?
Two 15 year old boys threw a paving slab off a bridge as a train approached and killed a train guard. It was held that There is no requirement that the defendant foresees that some harm will result from his action. Conviction upheld.
Burglary is an example of an unlawful act which would suffice for unlawful act manslaughter, what case shows this?
Watson
What happened in the case of Watson?
D smashed a window and broke into the house of an 87 year old man. Discovered by V, D shouted abuse at him and ran off. V suffered a heart attack and died 90 minutes after the initial break in. His conviction was quashed as it could not be established that the break in was the cause of the heart attack.
In the case Church, what was held about a dangerous act?
that a dangerous act need only be a risk causing ‘some harm’ not necessarily, serious harm.
In the case Church, what was held about a dangerous act?
that a dangerous act need only be a risk causing ‘some harm’ not necessarily, serious harm by a sober and reasonable person. It does not matter that they did not realise the risk.
Which case illustrates the fact that there is a need for both an unlawful act and for there to be an objective viewpoint, a risk of serious harm?
Larkin
What happened in the case of Larkin?
D threatened someone with a razor to frighten them, V intervened and was killed in the process. D’s conviction for manslaughter was upheld as the act of threatening the other man was an unlawful act.
D threatened someone with a razor to frighten them, V intervened and was killed in the process. D’s conviction for manslaughter was upheld as the act of threatening the other man was an unlawful act.
What case is this?
Larkin
Which 2 cases show that the unlawful act need not be aimed at the victim?
Larkin and Mitchell
What happened in the case of Mitchell?
D punched an old man who fell on an elderly woman who later died of her injuries. D was convicted of unlawful act manslaughter through an indirect act.
What is it not necessary for the sober and reasonable period to foresee?
it is not necessary for the sober and reasonable person to foresee the particular type of harm that the victim suffers. It is enough that they would foresee only some harm.
Which case stated that it was not not necessary for the sober and reasonable person to foresee the particular type of harm that the victim suffers. It is enough that they would foresee only some harm?
JM and SM
What happened in the case of JM and SM?
Ds started a fight with doormen. During the fight V, a doorman dropped dead due to an unknown medical issue, but it was proved that the fight caused the death. COA held that the sober and reasonable person need only have foreseen some harm, which inciting the fight did. Guilty.