ws5 Flashcards
Lamb [1967]
Where there is no unlawful act, D cannot possibly be guilty of constructive manslaughter.
Must satisfy both the AR and MR of said act.
DPP v Newbury and Jones [1977]
D does not need to foresee the risk of frightening or harming anyone, the issue is over the unlawful act.
Lowe [1973]
Unlawful act cannot be an omission.
If an unlawful act followed by an omission, can be viewed in conjunction as per Fagan v MPC.
Church [1965]
‘Dangerous’ in Constructive Manslaughter is an objective test, a sober reasonable person would foresee the risk of some harm.
Ball [1989]
‘Dangerous’ in Constructive Manslaughter is based on the knowledge that a reasonable person would have gained if he has been present at the scene of the crime and watched the whole act being performed.
Mistaken belief cannot be imputed into the sober and reasonable observer.
R v Bristow [2013]
Burglary could amount to an unlawful and dangerous act.
In this case it was objectively dangerous - access to premises by a single lane, if anyone tried to intervene there would be a risk of harm.
Adomako [1995]
Established manslaughter by gross negligence.
D owed a duty of care to the victim.
- Can apply the ordinary civil duty of care.
A breach of that duty of care.
A risk that D’s conduct could cause death.
○ ‘the circumstances must be such that a reasonably prudent person would have foreseen a serious and obvious risk of death’, from Singh [1999].
Evidence that the breach of duty caused the death of V.
A jury’s conclusion that D fell so far below the standards of that reasonable person in that situation that he can be labelled grossly negligent and deserving of criminal punishment.
Also, Adomako established that manslaughter by gross negligence can occur as a result of a failure to act.
Khan [1998]
Court of Appeal suggested that in cases of manslaughter by gross negligence, one would be liable for failing to act only where there was a duty of care to do so.
Must be a duty of care coupled with gross negligence.
Cotswold Geotechnical Holdings Ltd [2011]
First conviction under the Act following the death of one of its employees.
Fine of £385,000 put the company into liquidation.
Baldwins Crane Hire Ltd [2015]
Company fined £700,000 after a crane crash was found to have been caused by serious problems with the braking system of the crane which had not been properly maintained.
Princes Sporting Club [2010]
Company fined the totality of its remaining assets, also forced to put out a publicity order when it was no longer trading
Shows how the Act operates as a deterrent, this sent a message to other companies.
Lion Steel [2008]
Fined £487,000 despite being one of the larger companies to be prosecuted, turnover of £10 million per annum.
Judge was reluctant to put any of the 142 jobs the company provided at risk.
