W5 Involuntary Manslaughter Flashcards
What is involuntary manslaughter?
When victim has died, and there is a causal link between actions/omissions of D and the death, but there is no mens rea for murder.
What is constructive manslaughter?
Also called UDAD (Unlawful and Dangerous Act Manslaughter).
Offence constructed from a less serious crime.
Unlawful act + objectively dangerous + causing death = UDAM
What qualifies as an unlawful act for constructive manslaughter?
Unlawful in the criminal sense of the word - R v Lamb/ R v Kennedy (No 2)
What are the requirements for proving constructive manslaughter?
1) Establish the actus reus and mens rea of the base offence (Unlawful Act)
2) Establish that the act was objectively dangerous
3) Establish causal link between act and death
Does D have to foresee the risk of causing harm from the unlawful act?
No - R v Newbury and Jones
But does have to be objectively dangerous - R v Church
Unless D had special knowledge - Ball
R v Newbury and Jones
Facts: D threw paving stone off railway bridge, hit train and killed guard.
Significance: May be unclear what offence caused the death. Unnecessary for D to have foreseen risk of harm or known act was illegal.
R v Lamb
Facts: D pointed a revolver at friend as a joke. Didn’t know how guns worked, didn’t think there was a bullet in the chamber.
Significance: Was lacking the mens rea for the base offence (assault/battery) so not constructive manslaughter.
What is the threshold for danger for constructive manslaughter?
Unlawful act must be such that reasonable people would inevitably recognise that it would lead to the risk of some harm.
Note: Risk of harm, not likelihood of harm
Risk of some harm, not necessarily serious harm
R v Church
Facts: Knocked a woman unconscious, thought she was dead, so threw her into the river.
Significance: Constructive manslaughter - example of objectively dangerous act. Didn’t matter that he believed her to be dead.
R v Ball
Facts: D shot and killed V, but believed he had loaded the gun with blanks. He kept both live and blank cartridges in his pocket, grabbed a handful, and thought they were blanks. His belief was taken into consideration in regards to the mens rea for the base offence, but not for the objective test of danger.
Significance: Constructive manslaughter - Foreseeability of danger viewed from perspective of sober and reasonable bystander, unless D had special knowledge.
R v Dawson, Nolan, & Walmsley
Facts: Armed robbery with fake firearm. V was seemingly healthy, behind bulletproof glass, but had weak heart. Weak heart ruled not included in foreseeability of danger.
Significance: Constructive manslaughter - foreseeability of danger
R v Watson
Facts: D burgled elderly man, who died from heart attack. Ruled that the danger was foreseeable because of V’s age/frailty.
Significance: Constructive manslaughter - foreseeability of danger
Does the unlawful dangerous act have to have caused the death?
Yes. It does not need to be the sole/principal cause but must contribute. Normal causation rules apply.
What is gross negligence manslaughter?
Death resulting from grossly negligent (but otherwise lawful) act or omission.
No conscious choice to cause harm (no mens rea)
What is the legal authority for gross negligence manslaughter?
R v Adomako
R v Adomako
Facts: Anaesthetist failed to notice tube had disconnected from ventilator. Patient had cardiac arrest and died.
Significance: Authority for gross negligence manslaughter.
What are the elements for gross negligence manslaughter?
Duty of care
Breach of duty
Breach caused death
Breach of duty was so gross as to justify a criminal conviction
Conduct must create serious and obvious risk of death (objective - D does not need to perceive)
Reasonably foreseeable that breach of duty gave rise to such a risk
R v Kuddus
Facts: Chef prepared food containing peanuts for customer with peanut allergy. Chef hadn’t been told about the allergy, only the restaurant had.
Significance: Gross negligence manslaughter - conduct must create serious and obvious risk of death to V
R v Rose
Facts: Eye exam. Optometrist who negligently failed to perform her statutory duty to conduct an intra-ocular examination on 7 yr old patient.
Significance: Gross negligence manslaughter - reasonably foreseeable that breach of duty gave rise to a risk of death
R v Wacker
Facts: Lorry driver smuggling in stowaways. Turned off his engine in traffic, stopped the airflow to the storage container, and they suffocated and died.
Significance: Gross negligence manslaughter - duty of care even between parties to a criminal enterprise (separate from civil duty)
What is the test for breach of duty in gross negligence manslaughter?
Objective reasonable person’s test. If D has particular skills or knowledge, then they are judged against the actions of a reasonable person with that skill/knowledge.
Why was R v Evans gross negligence manslaughter but R v Kennedy (No 2)’s conviction for ULAD manslaughter overturned?
Evans had a duty of care to sister, both familial and because she stayed with her. There was no break in the causal chain because her actions after the injection (failure to call ambulance) contributed to the danger. Kennedy had no sufficient duty of care, did not stay with V, nothing after the injection contributed to the death.
How do you determine a breach of duty caused the death (GNM)?
1) But for test
2) Was the breach proximate, substantial, and an operating cause?
What is the test for a serious and obvious risk of death (GNM)?
Derived from Kuddus:
Would a reasonable person (e.g. another chef)
With the same knowledge about the victim/situation (known about allergy)
Perceive a serious and obvious risk to that class/type of person? (customers with peanut allergies)
What is the foreseeability requirement for GNM?
Derived from Rose (Honey):
Objective test - Would a reasonable optometrist have foreseen the risk?
Not just a risk, but a serious and obvious risk
What is subjective/reckless manslaughter?
Unclear if it still exists, but would be an involuntary manslaughter that doesn’t satisfy the other two elements, but there is still action/omission and causation for a death.
Could be a lawful dangerous act leading to death, or an omission with no objective foresight
Facts: D threw paving stone off railway bridge, hit train and killed guard.
Significance: May be unclear what offence caused the death. Unnecessary for D to have foreseen risk of harm or known act was illegal.
R v Newbury and Jones
Facts: D pointed a revolver at friend as a joke. Didn’t know how guns worked, didn’t think there was a bullet in the chamber.
Significance: Was lacking the mens rea for the base offence (assault/battery) so not constructive manslaughter.
R v Lamb
Facts: Knocked a woman unconscious, thought she was dead, so threw her into the river.
Significance: Constructive manslaughter - example of objectively dangerous act. Didn’t matter that he believed her to be dead.
R v Church
Facts: D shot and killed V, but believed he had loaded the gun with blanks. He kept both live and blank cartridges in his pocket, grabbed a handful, and thought they were blanks. His belief was taken into consideration in regards to the mens rea for the base offence, but not for the objective test of danger.
Significance: Constructive manslaughter - Foreseeability of danger viewed from perspective of sober and reasonable bystander, unless D had special knowledge.
R v Ball
Facts: Armed robbery with fake firearm. V was seemingly healthy, behind bulletproof glass, but had weak heart. Weak heart ruled not included in foreseeability of danger.
Significance: Constructive manslaughter - foreseeability of danger
R v Dawson, Nolan, & Walmsley
Facts: D burgled elderly man, who died from heart attack. Ruled that the danger was foreseeable because of V’s age/frailty.
Significance: Constructive manslaughter - foreseeability of danger
R v Watson
Facts: Anaesthetist failed to notice tube had disconnected from ventilator. Patient had cardiac arrest and died.
Significance: Authority for gross negligence manslaughter.
R v Adomako
Facts: Chef prepared food containing peanuts for customer with peanut allergy. Chef hadn’t been told about the allergy, only the restaurant had.
Significance: Gross negligence manslaughter - conduct must create serious and obvious risk of death to V
R v Kuddus
Facts: Eye exam. Optometrist who negligently failed to perform her statutory duty to conduct an intra-ocular examination on 7 yr old patient.
Significance: Gross negligence manslaughter - reasonably foreseeable that breach of duty gave rise to a risk of death
R v Rose
Facts: Lorry driver smuggling in stowaways. Turned off his engine in traffic, stopped the airflow to the storage container, and they suffocated and died.
Significance: Gross negligence manslaughter - duty of care even between parties to a criminal enterprise (separate from civil duty)
R v Wacker
