Comment on the law of manslaughter

Question 1

What is the first general criticism of of involuntary manslaughter?

Answer 1

it covers such a wide range of behaviour from someone who’s conduct may be short of murder to someone who’s conduct is relatively minor unlawful act.

Question 2

What are the 3 main criticisms of unlawful act manslaughter?

Answer 2

1) covers a very wide range of conduct
2) Death may be an unexpected result
3) Objective nature of the test means that D will be guilty even when he did not realise there was a risk

Question 3

How could the offence of unlawful act manslaughter be fairer?

Answer 3

if there were different levels of offence

Question 4

what is the maximum sentence involuntary manslaughter?

Answer 4

life imprisonment

Question 5

How would having different levels of offence rather than the wide offence of involuntary manslaughter be better?

Answer 5

if there were separate categories of offence, each would have a narrower band of sentences

Question 6

What case is an example of when death was an unexpected result but D was guilty of involuntary manslaughter anyways?

Answer 6

Mitchell

Question 7

What happened in the case of Mitchell?

Answer 7

D punched an elderly man who fell and injured an elderly woman who later died of injuries. D was guilty.

Question 8

What happened in the case of Cato?

Answer 8

D injected V with heroin. D was guilty

Question 9

What criticism does the comparison of Mitchell and Cato show?

Answer 9

this suggests that the level of blameworthiness of Ds are so different that it is not fair that both are convicted under the same offence. Regardless of sentence, they both carry the same conviction stigma associated to involuntary manslaughter

Question 10

In what report in 1996 did the Law Commission recommend the abolition of unlawful act manslaughter?

Answer 10

Legislating the Criminal Code: Involuntary Manslaughter, No.237

Question 11

What does ‘Legislating the Criminal Code:Involuntary Manslaughter, No.237 criticise in particular?

Answer 11

that it is not just that D must objectively foresee only some harm to be guilty. Manslaughter is too serious an offence to be given to defendants who’s conduct led to an unexpected result from a minor unlawful act, such as in the case of Mitchell.

Question 12

How does the objective test for unlawful act manslaughter conflict with other parts of the law such as recklessness?

Answer 12

as recklessness under the Cunningham decision is subjective, meaning D must be aware of the risk. Inconsistencies in the law.

Question 13

Why does it not make sense for D to be tested on an objective basis for unlawful act manslaughter?

Answer 13

as in minor cases such as criminal damage, ABH and s.20 offences, the test for recklessness is subjective, and so it does not make sense that a more serious offence has a wider scope of blame.

Question 14

Although in 1996 the Law Commission recommended abolishing unlawful act manslaughter in Legislating the Criminal Code: Involuntary manslaughter, No 237; in which report did they not recommend this?

Answer 14

Murder, Manslaughter and Infanticide 2006

Question 15

What did the Law Commission recommend in the Murder, Manslaughter and Infanticide 2006 report?

Answer 15

they suggested a tier structure of

• first degree murder
• second degree murder
• manslaughter

Under which manslaughter would cover

1) gross negligence
2) killing another person through a criminal act intended by D or aware of serious injury

Question 16

What did the Law Commission 2006 Muder, Manslaughter and Infanticide 2006 report say that the second category of manslaughter would be called?

1) gross negligence
2) killing another person through a criminal act intended by D or aware of serious injury

Answer 16

criminal act manslaughter

Question 17

Why would the recommended criminal act manslaughter under the 2006 Law Commission Report be more just?

Answer 17

as D would be convicted on a subjective basis which would prevent Ds being convicted of the serious offence of unlawful act manslaughter where they did not intend any injury and were unaware of the risk of injury.

Question 18

Where would more serious cases of manslaughter go to under the proposals of the 2006 report if D had intended serious injury or aware of the risk of death?

Answer 18

they would be convicted of second degree murder

Question 19

What are the main 3 criticisms of gross negligence manslaughter?

Answer 19

1) the test is circular
2) test may lead to inconsistencies due to jury decision
3) the civil test for negligence should not be used in criminal cases

Question 20

How is the test for gross negligence manslaughter circular?

Answer 20

as the jury is directed to convict of a crime if they think that the conduct was criminal, having no sequence of reasoning

Question 21

How does the decision made in gross negligence manslaughter cases differ from others?

Answer 21

as usually the judge decides if the conduct is capable of being a crime and the jury decide on the facts whether D has committed or not.

Question 22

How could the law be fairer in regards to how a decision is met?

Answer 22

if the judge made the decision as to whether the conduct was capable of being gross negligent manslaughter

Question 23

What did Lord Mackay state in the case of Adomako?

Answer 23

that the ordinary principles of negligence applied when deciding whether D had broken a duty of care.

Question 24

If, as stated by Lord Mackay in Adomaoko that the ordinary principals of negligence applied when deciding whether D had broken a duty of care, what would have been the decision in Stone and Dobinson under Civil law negligence?

Answer 24

they would no have been guilty as criminal law negligence has developed differently.

Question 25

What used to be a criticism of gross negligence mansalughert but was cleared up in Misra and another?

Answer 25

whether the risk had to be of death or whether the risk of serious injury was sufficient to prove gross negligence manslaughter

Question 26

What case clarified the law on whether the risk had to be of death or of serious injury in gross negligence manslaughter?

Answer 26

Misra and another

Question 27

What did the COA hold in Misra and another?

Answer 27

that the test in gross negligence manslaughter involves consideration of the risk of death, it is not sufficient to show a risk of bodily injury or injury to health.

Question 28

What did the Law Commission in 1996 propose?

Answer 28

that instead of gross negligence manslaughter there should be 2 categories of killing involving negligence.

1) reckless killing
2) killing by gross carelessness

Question 29

in 1996 the Law Commission suggested there be two categories instead of gross negligence manslaughter., which would be the more serious offence

1) reckless killing
2) killing by gross carelessness

Answer 29

reckless killing would be the more serious offence

Question 30

Under the 1996 Law Commission proposals, why would reckless killing be the more serious offence?

Answer 30

as the prosecution would have to prove that

• D is aware that his conduct will cause death or serious injury
• It is unreasonable in the circumstances for him to take that risk

Question 31

Under the 1996 Law COmission proposals, killing by gross carelessness would be a lower-level offence, what situations would this cover?

Answer 31

where the risk of death or serious injury would be obvious to a reasonable person in the position of the defendant.

Question 32

In what year did the Government issue a paper on reform, though no other action was taken on the 1996 proposals ?

Answer 32

2000

Question 33

What did the Government ask the Law Commission to do?

Answer 33

to review the whole of the homicide law which formalised into the Murder, Manslaughter and Infanticide report published in 2006

Question 34

What did the Law Commission remove from their 1996 report in the 2006 report, Murder, Manslaughter and Infanticide?

Answer 34

the 2 categories of killing in cases where there had been negligence

Question 35

the Law Commission removed their 1996 proposal that there should be 2 categories of killing in cases where there had been negligence in placement of what in their 2006 report?

Answer 35

that there should only be gross negligence manslaughter committed where

• Ds conduct causes death
• Reasonable person would realise risk of death
• D himself would appreciate risk
• conduct falls below what is reasonably expected

Question 36

What does the 2006 report largely do in regards to gross negligent manslaughter?

Answer 36

largely reinstates the law, making it absolutely clear that the risk must be to cause death

Question 37

What rule did the Law Commission recommend keeping in the 2006 report?

Answer 37

the rule that gross negligence manslaughter can be committed even when D was unaware that his or her conduct might cause death

Question 38

Why did the Law Commission suggest that the rule that gross negligence manslaughter can be committedven when D was unaware that his or her conduct might cause death be kept?

Answer 38

this is because negligence however gross should only be a question of whether the risk was glaringly obvious to the reasonable person at the material time

Question 39

What would prevent injustice under the Law Commission recommendation to keep the rule that gross negligence manslaughter can be committed even when D was unaware that his or her conduct might cause death?

Answer 39

the fact that the prosecution must prove that D was capable of appreciating the risk at the material time. This would prevent those from mental disabilities or younger from being convicted if they could not appreciate risk.

Question 40

What would happen to reckless manslaughter is the Law Comission’s recommendations of 2006 were carried out?

Answer 40

it would become a very narrow category, and almost indistinguishable from gross negligence manslaughter in many cases, which is why they suggested it be abolished for making the law too complex

Question 41

What did the Law Commission point out about the worst cases of reckless manslaughter?

Answer 41

that they would be accounted for within second degree murder

Question 42

What case is an example of where D could have been instead guilty under gross negligence rather than reckless?

Answer 42

Lidar