Criminal - Manslaughter

Question 1

In which case were the 4 elements for unlawful act manslaughter set out? What are these 4 elements?

Answer 1

Newbury and Jones is the authority for this, but it was restated in Kennedy No2
Needs to be an
Unlawful,
Dangerous act
Causing death.
The act must be voluntary.

Question 2

Can consent be a valid defence to manslaughter?

Answer 2

Yes

Slingsby 1995. Signet ring, anal fisting. The act wasn’t unlawful as she had consented to the act.

Question 3

Which case states that self-injection is not an offence? Which case would you use to contrast with this?

Answer 3

Dias
Cf. Cato
In Cato the court said the possession of the dangerous drug was the unlawful act. However there is a problem with this: the possession didn’t CAUSE the person’s death!
This was cleared up in Kennedy 1999

Question 4

In which case did two girls set a derelict building alight? What was the point of law?

Answer 4

JF and NE 2015
Was an unlawful act. Dangerous - they could foresee the harm since the homeless man’s possessions were in the building and they knew that people slept there.

Said that if wanted to go away from Church then it should be for Parliament to do so.

Question 5

What must be true of the act in order to secure a successful conviction for manslaughter?

Answer 5

The act must be criminal, and only an act will suffice, not an omission.
Transferred malice may apply - AG’s ref (No3 of 1994)

The act will be dangerous if a reasonable person could dose that it would cause SOME harm (Church) - also stated in JM and SM 2015.

Question 6

Which case involved a bridge and a block, why is it such an important case?

Answer 6

Newbury
Outlined the principle you need for unlawful act manslaughter.
An unlawful, dangerous, voluntary act causing death.

Question 7

In which case did a boy misunderstand the revolving mechanism for a gun?

Answer 7

Lamb

There was no unlawful act, since they both thought it was a joke. For assault need recklessness or intention.

Question 8

Describe the test for foreseeability for unlawful act manslaughter. 4 cases.

Answer 8

Reasonable person (objective) needs to have foreseen some harm (Church).
Some harm means PHYSICAL harm (ABH) - emotional disturbance isn't enough (Dawson)

The reasonable person will be credited with the level of knowledge judged as if he were in D’s situation (Dawson)
Where D acquires knowledge after starting to commit a crime he will be deemed to have that knowledge from the outset (Watson)

Knowledge is judged objectively, it is irrelevant if it is incorrect (Ball)

Question 9

Which case was about happy slapping? What was the point of law?

Answer 9

Carey 2006

It wasn’t reasonably foreseeable that a 15 yr old girl would suffer shock, so no liability.

Question 10

Which case reiterated the Church direction that only SOME harms need be foreseeable? What were the elaborations in this case?

Answer 10

JM and SM 2011
Need to foresee some harm, don’t need to foresee the type. Shock can lead to actual bodily harm

This case was about a fight with a bouncer. Bouncer had holes in his heart and died. So SHOCK (which led to death) is included in the harm that is foreseen.

Question 11

What is the men’s rea for unlawful act manslaughter?

Answer 11

Intention to commit the act (Newbury and Jones)
Intention to commit the act is required, not intention as to its outcome (Lamb)
Recklessness will not suffice (Andrews v DPP)

Question 12

What do you need for gross negligence manslaughter? Actus

Answer 12

Doc, breach, risk of death, causing death (Adomako, per Lord McKay)
Significant risk of death is important to establish. Must cause death in law and in fact.

There is no need for the act to be criminal, and tortious principles are not available as a defence (Wacker)

The risk of death must be serious and reasonably foreseeable (misra)

Question 13

Which case challenged Adomako? On what grounds?

Answer 13

Misra 2004
Risk of death must be serious and foreseeable.
Said Adomako is circular and retroactive since asking jurors to decide on the facts and set up a definition of criminality. Said it was a breach of Arts 6 and 7 since the uncertainty over the Adomako test meant it wasn’t clear whether their conduct would be deemed criminal.

In misra the CoA said the jurors shouldn’t be deciding if conduct criminal, but if it is grossly negligent which makes it criminal.
This is a tautologous response from the CoA. Treating the word criminal in its ordinary sense.

The Adomako test was upheld (it didn’t infringe convention rights) but it is likely that it will be challenged again in the near future.

Question 14

What is the men’s rea for gross negligence manslaughter?

Answer 14

Nothing to do with the state of mind, but to do with the state of the conduct.
Conduct do obviously wrong it can be described as criminal (Adomako)
Tends to be a series of actions, but it is possible that it could be just one action (Adomako)

Question 15

Are gross negligence manslaughter and unlawful act manslaughter mutually exclusive?

Answer 15

No

R v S 2015

Question 16

What are the defences available to manslaughter?

Answer 16

All are available but consent is not available for unlawful act man.
If a third party is involved or responsible for D’s negligence this may help D prove he was n it grossly negligent (Singh)
Singh was about gas fired in a block of flats. The manager was the third party, though it wasn’t proved that the duty was lifted. D was convicted of gross negligence manslaughter.

Question 17

What are the two very recent decisions in gross negligence manslaughter?

Answer 17

Bowler 2015
Gay lover from the Internet, extreme sexual acts inc mummification. V was fine, D fell asleep then V not fine. Creation of a dangerous situation and breach of DoC. Had fallen asleep and then delayed calling the ambulance.

R v S 2015
Both 25, D wanted to scare his gf by pulling the trigger of the gun. Shot her in the neck as didn’t realise it was loaded.
Creation of a dangerous situation.
Gross neg man and unlawful act manslaughter not mutually exclusive. Can both occur on the same facts.
d did want V to fear violence so different to Lamb (where there wasn’t an unlawful act as both thought it was a joke).

Question 18

Ashworth v Williams debate is about commission through omission
What did Andrew Ashworth have to say?

Answer 18

Supports it, but recognises it has some limitations.
Advocate of the SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY view - people sometimes owe others a duty to act, so liability may arise through omission. Evans (Gemma)
Plus duties may arise through the duty to assist those in peril, duty to take reasonable steps towards law enforcement, duty to ensure health and welfare of one’s children

Question 19

In the Ashworth v Williams debate what does Glanville’s Williams have to offer?

Answer 19

A crime may be committed by omission e can be no omission in law in the absence of a duty to act.
Everybody in society has to be able to practice his own will (within a limit)
Critical of punishing omissions - v paternalistic. The punishment of those who commit positive criminal actions should be more grave.

If there is a child drowning should there be a duty to act?
Probably not, shouldn’t codify this in statute as the court need flexibility in order to adapt liability in different situations.
Alt argument is that we do need this ta make the parameters of liability a duties to act clearer.

Question 20

What does William Wilson have to say in relation to the Ashworth v Williams debate?

Answer 20

What is morally worse: shooting a child to prevent the agony of burning to death, or failing to save a child from a similar fate by not unlocking the door (omission) behind which it is trapped?
First situation is a hard judgement call to make, so can’t preclude liability generally.
Second situation - would turn on whether D had knowledge of the child behind the locked door to see if a duty had been created. The longer he stands there the more likely it is that a duty would be imposed. At what point does he become a negligent rescuer?

Question 21

Quick rundown of the ways in which a duty may be created?

Answer 21

Contract Pitwood Benge
Statute
Voluntary assumption Stone and Dobinson
Public Office Dytham
Familial relationship Instan Gibbons Proctor
Dangerous situation Fagan Miller Santana-Bermudez Evans
Bowler RvS 2015