Cases LAST MINUTE

Question 1

R v Church (1966) (unlawful act manslaughter)

Answer 1

“the unlawful act must be such as all reasonable people would inevitably recognise must subject the other person to, at least, the risk of some harm…”

Question 2

R v Newbury and Jones (1976) (unlawful act manslaughter)

Answer 2

The House of Lords upheld their convictions, establishing important principles regarding the mens rea (mental element) required for unlawful act manslaughter. The court ruled that it was unnecessary to prove that the defendants foresaw the risk of death or even injury; it was sufficient that they intentionally committed the unlawful act (damaging the train) which objectively created a risk of harm that any reasonable person would recognise.

Question 3

Adomako (gross negligence manslaughter)

Answer 3

Anaesthetist missed a disconnected tube; patient died. Convicted of gross negligence manslaughter. Test: conduct must be grossly below expected standard.

Question 4

define Gross Negligent Manslaughter

Answer 4

Manslaughter due to grossly negligent conduct where a duty of care is breached, causing death. e.g., R v Adomako.

Question 5

Define Unlawful Act Manslaughter

Answer 5

Manslaughter resulting from an unlawful, dangerous act that causes death, even without intent to harm. e.g., R v Franklin.

Question 6

Define Involuntary Manslaughter

Answer 6

Unintentional killing caused by unlawful or negligent acts, without intent to kill or cause GBH.

Question 7

R v Franklin (1883) (unlawful act manslaughter)

Answer 7

Threw box off pier, killed swimmer. No manslaughter—act must be criminal, not just unlawful. Set rule for unlawful act manslaughter.

Question 8

Woolin (murder)

Answer 8

Woollin lost his temper and threw his 3-month-old baby onto a hard surface, causing the baby’s death. He claimed he didn’t intend to kill.

Whether Woollin had the intention required for murder.

jury may find intent where:

Death or serious harm was a virtual certainty from the defendant’s actions, and

The defendant appreciated that this was the case.
Clarified the test for oblique (indirect) intention in murder cases. This refined the guidance from R v Nedrick.

Question 9

R v Matthews and Alleyne [2003] (murder)

Answer 9

he defendants pushed a victim, who they knew couldn’t swim, off a bridge into a deep river. They made no attempt to rescue him. The victim drowned.

Did the defendants have intention to kill, necessary for a murder conviction?

The Court of Appeal followed Woollin, stating:

If death is a virtual certainty and the defendant realised this, the jury may find intention, but it is not automatic.

Confirmed the Woollin test for oblique intention but emphasised that it’s a rule of evidence, not a rule of law—juries decide whether intention is present.