W5 Involuntary Manslaughter

Question 1

What is involuntary manslaughter?

Answer 1

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.

Question 2

What is constructive manslaughter?

Answer 2

Also called UDAD (Unlawful and Dangerous Act Manslaughter).
Offence constructed from a less serious crime.
Unlawful act + objectively dangerous + causing death = UDAM

Question 3

What qualifies as an unlawful act for constructive manslaughter?

Answer 3

Unlawful in the criminal sense of the word - R v Lamb/ R v Kennedy (No 2)

Question 4

What are the requirements for proving constructive manslaughter?

Answer 4

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

Question 5

Does D have to foresee the risk of causing harm from the unlawful act?

Answer 5

No - R v Newbury and Jones
But does have to be objectively dangerous - R v Church
Unless D had special knowledge - Ball

Question 6

R v Newbury and Jones

Answer 6

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.

Question 7

R v Lamb

Answer 7

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.

Question 8

What is the threshold for danger for constructive manslaughter?

Answer 8

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

Question 9

R v Church

Answer 9

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.

Question 10

R v Ball

Answer 10

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.

Question 11

R v Dawson, Nolan, & Walmsley

Answer 11

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

Question 12

R v Watson

Answer 12

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

Question 13

Does the unlawful dangerous act have to have caused the death?

Answer 13

Yes. It does not need to be the sole/principal cause but must contribute. Normal causation rules apply.

Question 14

What is gross negligence manslaughter?

Answer 14

Death resulting from grossly negligent (but otherwise lawful) act or omission.
No conscious choice to cause harm (no mens rea)

Question 15

What is the legal authority for gross negligence manslaughter?

Answer 15

R v Adomako

Question 16

R v Adomako

Answer 16

Facts: Anaesthetist failed to notice tube had disconnected from ventilator. Patient had cardiac arrest and died.

Significance: Authority for gross negligence manslaughter.

Question 17

What are the elements for gross negligence manslaughter?

Answer 17

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

Question 18

R v Kuddus

Answer 18

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

Question 19

R v Rose

Answer 19

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

Question 20

R v Wacker

Answer 20

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)

Question 21

What is the test for breach of duty in gross negligence manslaughter?

Answer 21

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.

Question 22

Why was R v Evans gross negligence manslaughter but R v Kennedy (No 2)’s conviction for ULAD manslaughter overturned?

Answer 22

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.

Question 23

How do you determine a breach of duty caused the death (GNM)?

Answer 23

1) But for test
2) Was the breach proximate, substantial, and an operating cause?

Question 24

What is the test for a serious and obvious risk of death (GNM)?

Answer 24

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)

Question 25

What is the foreseeability requirement for GNM?

Answer 25

Derived from Rose (Honey):
Objective test - Would a reasonable optometrist have foreseen the risk?
Not just a risk, but a serious and obvious risk

Question 26

What is subjective/reckless manslaughter?

Answer 26

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

Question 27

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.

Answer 27

R v Newbury and Jones

Question 28

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.

Answer 28

R v Lamb

Question 29

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.

Answer 29

R v Church

Question 30

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.

Answer 30

R v Ball

Question 31

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

Answer 31

R v Dawson, Nolan, & Walmsley

Question 32

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

Answer 32

R v Watson

Question 33

Facts: Anaesthetist failed to notice tube had disconnected from ventilator. Patient had cardiac arrest and died.

Significance: Authority for gross negligence manslaughter.

Answer 33

R v Adomako

Question 34

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

Answer 34

R v Kuddus

Question 35

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

Answer 35

R v Rose

Question 36

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)

Answer 36

R v Wacker