Involuntary Manslaughter

Question 1

What is involuntary manslaughter?

Answer 1

An unlawful killing without intent (to kill or cause GBH)

Question 2

What are the 2 types if IVM?

Answer 2

1. Gross Negligence Manslaughter

2. Unlawful Act Manslaughter

Question 3

What is GNM?

Answer 3

D has unlawfully killed V through being very badly negligent but does not intend to kill or cause GBH

Question 4

What case gave out the elements to GNM and what are the 4 elements?

Answer 4

R v Adomako

1. D must owe V a duty of care
2. D must breach the duty (with the breach involving a risk of death)
3. D’s breach must cause V’s death
4. D must be grossly negligent, meaning conduct is ‘so bad’ that it amounts to a crime.

Question 5

What are the 2 ways it can be proven D owes a duty of care to V?

Answer 5

1. Applying the Caparo test

2. Prove their was an omissions and D had a duty to act

Question 6

What is the Caparo test?

Answer 6

1. Was the damage reasonably foreseeable
2. Was there proximity between the parties
3. Is it fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty on D

Jolley v Sutton is where the test was made out
Bourhill v Young is where the test wasn’t made out

Question 7

What are the 5 types of duty to act and their relevant cases?

Answer 7

1. Contractual - R v Pittwood
2. Relationship - R v Gibbins & Proctor
3. Voluntary Assumption of Care - R v Stone & Dobinson
4. Public Office - R v Dytham
5. Creating a Dangerous Situation - R v Miller and R v Santana-Bermudez

Question 8

What must the voluntary assumption of care be for D to have a duty of care for V?

Answer 8

It must be significant - normally where D has willingly and actively taken over the care of V - R v Evans.
This stops people from being criminally responsible if they are trying to do the right thing.

Question 9

What does ‘ex turpi causa’ mean in criminal law?

Answer 9

That if multiple Ds are involved in a joint venture, they owe each other a duty of care - Wacker.

Question 10

What case defined what a breach was and what was the definition?

Answer 10

Blyth v Birmingham Water Works - Not doing something the reasonable man would or doing something the reasonable man would not.

Question 11

What is the principle from Nettleship v Weston?

Answer 11

Inexperience does not change the standard of care.

Question 12

What is the principle from Bolam v Friern Barnet HMC?

Answer 12

Being a professional/having expertise can raise the standard of care.

Question 13

What is the principle from Mullins v Richards?

Answer 13

Age can lower the standard of care.

Question 14

What are the 4 risk factors and their relevant cases?

Answer 14

1. Size of risk - Miller v Jackson (high risk) and Bolton v Stone (low risk)
2. Seriousness of potential harm - Paris v SBC
3. Practicability of precautions - Latimer v AEC and Haley v LEB
4. Benefit of taking a risk - Watt v HCC

Question 15

What are the 2 cases for the breach involving a risk of death?

Answer 15

Misra v Strivastava - D’s breach must involve a risk of death
Lewin v CPS - the risk of death must be foreseeable by a reasonable person

In an essay, use Misra if reasonable man would foresee the risk of death and Lewin if not

Question 16

Apply causation

Answer 16

Factual causation - But for test - R v Pagett and R v White
Legal causation - Operative and substantive test - R v Smith
Intervening acts - Acts of the victim - R v Williams and R v Roberts - Acts of a third party - R v Jordan - Acts of god - Thin-skull rule - R v Blaue

Question 17

What is test for whether D’s conduct was grossly negligent and what case did it come from?

Answer 17

Adomako - D’s conduct is ‘so bad’, departed so far from the standard of care expected - as to amount to a criminal act or omission.
I.e. D’s conduct must be so bad that it amounts to a crime.

Question 18

What is UAM?

Answer 18

D has unlawfully killed V but did not intend kill or cause GBH to V.

Question 19

What are the 3 elements of UAM?

Answer 19

1. D must commit an unlawful act
2. The act must be dangerous
3. D’s act must cause V’s death

Question 20

What element must MR be proven for in UAM?

Answer 20

The unlawful act (the first element).

Question 21

What is the principle from R v Stone & Dobinson?

Answer 21

An omission is not enough for an unlawful act, there must be an act.

Question 22

What is the principle from R v Franklin?

Answer 22

A civil wrong is not enough, there must be a criminal action.

Question 23

What is the principle from R v Lamb?

Answer 23

D must have the AR and MR for the unlawful act.

Question 24

What are some examples of unlawful acts?

Answer 24

Assault, Battery, ABH, etc.

Any criminal offence

Question 25

What is the mens rea for the unlawful act?

Answer 25

D only needs the MR for the unlawful act - not the death.

Question 26

What is the principle from DPP v Newbury and Jones?

Answer 26

It is not necessary for the D to foresee any harm from his act. D only needs the MR of the unlawful act.

Question 27

What is the principle from Mitchell?

Answer 27

Malice can be transferred to the actual victim from the intended victim.

Question 28

What is test for whether or not D's act was dangerous and what case did it come from?

Answer 28

R v Church - An act is dangerous if a sober and reasonable person would realise that it carries a risk of some (physical) harm to another person.

Question 29

What is the principle from R v Dawson?

Answer 29

A reasonable person would not realise that there is a risk of physical harm if V's condition is hidden?

Question 30

What is the principle from R v Watson?

Answer 30

A reasonable person would have realised the risk of physical harm to V as V was old and visibly frail.

Question 31

What is the principle from R v JM & SM?

Answer 31

There is no need for the sober and reasonable person to foresee the specific harm from which V died, only that V would suffer physical harm of some sort.

Question 32

What is the principle from R v Goodfellow?

Answer 32

The unlawful act can be aimed at property, as long as the sober and reasonable person would realise it carried a risk of some physical harm to a person.

Question 33

What is different about causation in UAM?

Answer 33

There are 3 extra cases: 1. R v Dear - Self neglect by V does not break the chain of causation. 2. Cato - If D administers drugs to V, the chain is intact 3. Kennedy - If V administers drugs to themselves, it breaks the chain of causation. *2nd and 3rd cases deal with drug cases and it comes down to who injected V.