b- laws relating to involuntary manslaughter Flashcards
Involuntary manslaughter
When d lacks mens rea for murder, and had no intention to kill or cause harm.
Unlawful act manslaughter (constructive manslaughter)
Where someone is killed when d is in course of committing another crime. The act committed was deliberate, criminally unlawful, dangerous and caused death of the victim. The act must be a crime and not a civil wrong, the d must have mens rea for criminal act but not need to prove they intended the result. Has to be a positive act and not an omission. Crimes requiring mens rea of negligence cannot form basis (dangerous driving).
R v Lamb (1967)- pointed gun in fun, 2/5, thought it would not
D pointed a gun at his friend in fun. H e was aware that the gun was loaded with 2 bullets in a 5 chamber cylinder, although he thought the gun would not fire unless a bullet was opposite the barrel. He knew there was no bullet opposite the barrel but was unaware that the cylinder revolved when the trigger was pulled. D pulled trigger and shot fired, killing his friend. CoA held there was no assault and therefore no criminal act.
R v Ball (1989)- live and blank cartridges, loaded and fired, fear
D took two cartridges from pockets, both live and blank. He loaded a shotgun and fired at the victim stating his aim was to frighten in her. The cartridge was a live one and the victim died, the d was convicted of unlawful act manslaughter. D act was deliberate and criminally unlawful. Test for whether act was dangerous is not based on d viewpoint but an objective test.
R v Meeking (2012)- driving, argument, handbrake
D was a passenger in a car travelling at speed. In the middle of an argument the d pulled handbrake to stop the car. Car spun and collided with another vehicle. Her husband, the driver, was killed. CoA upheld conviction of constructive manslaughter. Under the Road Traffic Act 1988, a reasonable person would have considered the d actions of intentionally and unlawfully interfering with a motor vehicle as dangerous.
Unlawful act manslaughter- dangerous act
Test to determine if act of d is dangerous= objective, reasonable person must recognise that the act of the d would cause the other person ‘some harm’, but d does not need to foresee what type of harm. Must be a risk of physical (emotional is not enough). In R v Dhaliwal (2006), court considered physical and psychiatric harm.
R v JM and SM (2012)- club, removal, return and assaulted
D were removed from a nightclub by the doormen, later returned and assaulted the doormen. The victim Mr Jopling, intervened and due to a pre-existing condition collapsed and died. Evidence produced that the collapse was brought about by the shock and sudden surge of blood pressure. Trial judge stated type of injury was diff related to normal fight injuries, suggesting that d should not be convicted of unlawful act manslaughter. CoA overturned trial judge decision and stated reasonable person observing the affray ‘would readily have recognised that all doormen involved in the effort to control the d were at risk of some harm and that the fatal injury occurred while it was in progress or in its immediate aftermath. Neither the d nor reasonable person need to foresee any specific harm. The d were convicted of unlawful act manslaughter.
Unlawful act manslaughter- causing the death of the victim
If act committed by d causes death, court applies factual and legal causation. An intervening act might break chain of causation.
R v Cato (1976)- inject another, heroin
D injected the victim with heroin supplied by the victim, the victim died as a result of the injection. D was convicted of manslaughter based on unlawful act of administering a noxious substance. CoA held that injection victim was unlawful and upheld conviction. D had unlawfully taken the heroin into possession and had done an unlawful act. This decision has been criticised because it linked the d conduct to end result.
R v Kennedy (2007)- prepare mixture of heroin+water, injected themself
D prepared a mixture of heroin and water for the victim. He handed the syringe to the victim who injected themself, handed the syringe back and died. D was convicted of unlawful act manslaughter. After 2 appeals, HoL quashed conviction stating that the d had not committed an unlawful act and that the victim had exercised free will in injecting himself, breaking chain of causation.
Gross negligence manslaughter
Negligence= acting carelessly, this is not enough for criminal liability, negligence has to be gross= negligence has to be so bad that the actions of the d are considered criminal. Current tests were established in a case R v Adomako (1995). Foresight of the consequences is not required of the d, just of reasonable person, jury may take into account whether d actions were influenced (stress, inexperience, mistake or confusion).
Gross negligence manslaughter- questions
Did d owe victim duty of care? Did the d breach that duty of care? Did breach of duty cause the death of the victim? Were the actions of the d so grossly negligent that they could be classed as criminal?
R v Adomako (1995)- anaesthetist, operation, breathing tube
D was an anaesthetist and his role was to ensure that a patient undergoing operation was safe and able to breathe while under anaesthetic. A tube supplying the patient with oxygen became disconnected. The d failed to notice problem for 4 and a half minutes and then misdiagnosed the situation. Evidence showed a competent anaesthetist would have been aware of the problem within 15 seconds. All of elements for gross negligence were present in this case.
Gross negligence manslaughter- duty of care
Sometimes existence of duty of care is obvious, a duty of care exists between e.g. parent, teacher, doctor, employer, motorist. Where it is difficult to decide whether there is a duty of care relationship, courts have to decide whether it was reasonably foreseeable that actions of d would cause death.
R v Winter (2010)- fireworks, cameraman
The director and an employee of a fireworks company were held to owe a duty of care for a cameraman who worked for the fire services. Cameraman attended a fire to make a film for training purposes and was killed when a box of hazardous fireworks exploded. The director and employee were convicted of gross negligence manslaughter but appealed stating that they didn’t owe a duty of care to the cameraman. CoA upheld their conviction as it was reasonably foreseeable that a cameraman working for the fire service might film or photograph the site of the fire.
