Involuntary Manslaughter Flashcards
What are the two types of involuntary act manslaughter?
Gross negligence manslaughter
Unlawful act manslaughter.
What is Involuntary Manslaughter
an unlawful killing where the defendant DOES NOT have the intention to kill or cause GBH
What is another name for Unlawful Act Manslaughter
Constructive Manslaughter
What is Unlawful Act Manslaughter?
Where the defendant has done a dangerous, unlawful act which caused the death of someone else.
The defendant is still liable even if they didn’t realise death or injury would occur. As long as it’s a dangerous act.
What are the four key conditions for an act to qualify as unlawful act manslaughter?
- The defendant must do an unlawful act.
- That act must be dangerous on an objective test.
- The act must cause the death.
- The defendant must have the required mens rea for the unlawful act.
Describe the first element of UAM and a relevant case
The first element is that a defendant must do an unlawful act.
This means it must be an ACT and not an OMISSION.
R vs Khan and Khan (girl snorts too much cocaine she was provided with and they leave her in the flat rather than calling the police, omission so not liable)
Describe the second element of UAM and a relevant case
The second element is that the act must be considered dangerous.
Uses the objective test of:
“Liable if the sober and reasonable person would recognise the act will subject the other person to the risk of SOME harm, do not need to foresee serious harm for liability”.
Key case: R vs Church
This case relates to whether the sober reasonable person would foresee that it is dangerous
(knocks out women, assumes she’s dead throw’s her body into ocean where she drowns)
In the second element of UAM, what else can the intent be directed act and still result in liability?
Intent can be directed at an object! For instance setting a house on fire!
R vs Goodfellow
(in an effort to get rehoused he set his house on fire killing everyone inside)
In relation to intention towards object, what is the four stage test for liability?
- The act was committed intentionally (mens rea for the unlawful act)
- It was unlawful (illegal)
- Reasonable people would recognise it might cause some harm to another person.
- The act caused the death of another person(s)
Describe the Third element of UAM and a relevant case
This element establishes that the act must result in death of someone.
Rules of causation apply including chain of causation and thin skull rule
The case that relates to this is R vs Cato
(case where the D and V shared a heroin needle that caused the victim to die, as D had injected the victim they were liable)
Describe the Fourth element of UAM and a relevant case
It must be proved that the D had the mens rea (intent) for the unlawful / illegal act
Establishes that The defendant must intend to do the action but does not need to foresee any harm from doing the action.
Key Case: Newbury and Jones (1976)
(15-year-olds throw stone onto tracks killing train guards, they did not foresee any harm, but they did it intentionally so still liable)
What is Gross Negligence Act Manslaughter?
This is committed by an omission (failure to act) when the D owes the V a duty of care but breaches that duty is a very negligent why resulting in the death of the victim.
R vs Adomako is by far the most important case for this, it can be used in every element of GNAM if needed.
(doctor didn’t notice oxygen tube had come out of patient)
What are the four elements of GNAM
Duty of Care
Breach of Duty
Gross negligence
Risk of death.
Describe the First element of GNAM and a relevant case
The first element of Gross Negligent Act Manslaughter is establishing that the D owed the V a duty of care.
The case that relates to this is Donahue V Stevenson which established the neighbour principle, stating one must take reasonable care to avoid acts and omissions that can reasonably foreseeably harm their ‘neighbours’.
Some notes to do with this are that:
- The civil law of negligence applies.
- May cover a duty not to supply drugs.
- The fact that the victim was party to an illegal act irrelevant.
Describe the Second element of GNAM and a relevant case
The second element of GNAM is that establishing that there has been a breach of duty.
Case that relates to this is R v Misra and Srivastava [2005]
To establish a breach of duty the “reasonable person” or “reasonable foreseeability” test is used.
This test determines whether the defendant’s actions or omissions fell below the standard of care expected from a reasonable person in similar circumstances aka same skills, knowledge, and experience as the defendant, would have done in the circumstances
