Unlawful Act Manslaughter( PAPER 1 ) Flashcards
What is involuntary manslaughter?
An unlawful killing where the D doesn’t have the MR
What type of offence is Unlawful Act Manslaughter?
Common law offence
What is the max sentence of Unlawful Act Manslaughter?
Life(Discretionary)
To be guilty of Unlawful Act Manslaughter it must be proven that…?
1) D commits an Unlawful act
2) The unlawful act is ‘dangerous’
3) The act causes V’s death
4) D possesses the MR for the unlawful act
What is meant by ‘D must commit an unlawful act’?
-Death must be caused by an unlawful act
-D must commit a crime, rather than a civil tort (R v Franklin)
What happened in (R v Franklin) (1883) ?
-D threw box over pier into sea, box hit swimmer on head who drowned
-Not guilty of UAM
-D had committed a civil tort and not a criminal unlawful act
What happened in (R v Lamb) (1967)?
-Two boys played with a gun (loaded but thought wouldn’t go off), D pointed gun at friend and pulled trigger, killing his friend
-Not guilty of UAM
-D must commit a crime, D didn’t commit assault as V didnt apprehend immediate unlawful violence
What happened in (R v Lowe) (1973) ?
-D wilfully neglected his son who later died
-Not guilty of UAM
-Unlawful ACT requires D to act therefore an omission is insufficient
What does (R v Lowe)(1973) tell us that an unlawful act requires…?
Unlawful Act requires D to act therefore an omission is insufficient
Act must be dangerous means what?
The unlawful act that D commits must be dangerous on an objective test
(R v Church) (1965) tells us an act can be considered dangerous if?
‘A sober and reasonable person would recognise the risk of some harm’
(R V Goodfellow (1986) tells us what about the unlawful act?
It does not have to be aimed at a person, as king as the reasonable person could foresee the risk in some harm
What happens in (R v Goodfellow)(1986)?
-D set fire to council flat so he could get rehomed and his family, fire got out of control killing his family
-Guilty of UAM
Act risk could be foreseen by reasonable person
What does (DPP V NEWBURY AND JONES(1976)) tell us?
D’s foresight is irrelevant, if the sober and reasonable person would foresee some harm then the act was dangerous
What happens in (DPP V NEWBURY AND JONES(1976))?
Two 15 year old lads ‘threw a paving slab off a railway bridge as a train approached’ which went through window on train and struck guard, killing him.
Guilty of UAM as reasonable person would foresee harm and act as dangerous
What happens in (R v Dawson)?
D’s attempted to rob a petrol station, masked and armed. The attendant had a heart attack due to a vulnerability
D not guilty of UAM
Reasonable person would not foresee the risk of some harm from D’s actions
3)The act must cause death means what?
D’s unlawful act must be the factual and the legal cause of death.
How do we test if D was the factual cause of death?
D must pass the ‘but for’ test
How do we test if D was the legal cause of death?
They must be more than a minimal cause of death and intervening acts must not break the chain of causation
What happens in (R v Mitchell (1983)?
-During an argument, D pushed V landed on V2. V2 broke hip and died.
-D guilty of UAM
-The act of a third party will not break the chain if its reasonably foreseeable
What does (R v Mitchell(1983) tell us?
The act of a third party will not break the chain if its reasonably foreseeable
What happens in R v Carey (2006)?
-V came across D’s who became physically violent and made fun of V. Motorists stopped them and V ran off, she collapsed and died from a heart disease induced from her running
-Not guilty of UAM
-The battery was not the cause of death, the running away was (in which a sober and reasonable person would not foresee some harm)
Why was D not guilty of UAM in R v Carey (2006)?
As the battery was not the cause of death, the running away was (which a sober and reasonable person would not foresee some harm)
What happens in R v Kennedy (2007)?
-D prepared an injection of heroin and water for V. D handed it to V who injected himself and handed it back to D.
-D not guilty of UAM
-V’s action was an intervening act as it was the significant contribution
Why was D not guilty of UAM in R v Kennedy(2007)?
V’s action was an intervening act as it was the significant contribution
What happened in (R v Rodgers) (2003)?
-D and V were drug users. V injected himself with heroin, D held a belt around V’s arm (makeshift tourniquet). V died of an overdose
-D guilty of UAM
-D’s acts were a significant contribution to the victims death
Why was D guilty of UAM in (R v Rodgers(2003)?
As D’s a acts were a significant contribution to the victims death
What happens in R v Lewis (2010)?
-Dand V got into an argument in which D chased V down the road. V ran into road to escape D but was hit by a car
-D guilty of UAM
-V’s acts will only break the chain of causation if they are ‘daft and unforeseeable)
Why was D guilty of UAM in R v Lewis (2010)?
As V’s acts will only break the chain of causation if they are ‘daft and unforeseeable’(Roberts)
Does D need the MR for death or harm?
NO! D does not need MR for death or even harm
To be guilty of UAM the D only needs to possess the MR of ….?
The unlawful act that they committed that caused the death
If D does not have the MR for the unlawful act then what?
D will not be guilty (R v Lamb)
What happens in (DDP v Newbury and Jones(1967)?
-Two boys guilty of UAM because they had committed criminal damage
-The mens rea is for criminal damage is intention or recklessness in damaging/destroying property
