Involuntary Manslaughter

Question 1

What is involuntary manslaughter?

Answer 1

It is a type of homicide where the defendant lacks the intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm, but their actions lead to someone’s death.

Question 2

What are the two main types of involuntary manslaughter?

Answer 2

Unlawful act manslaughter (UAM) and gross negligence manslaughter.

Question 3

What is unlawful act manslaughter also known as?

Answer 3

Constructive manslaughter.

Question 4

What are the essential elements of unlawful act manslaughter?

Answer 4

A positive act, an unlawful act, a dangerous act, the required mens rea, and causation leading to death.

Question 5

Is intent to kill required for unlawful act manslaughter?

Answer 5

No, intent to kill or cause serious harm is not required.

Question 6

What is required regarding the act in unlawful act manslaughter?

Answer 6

There must be a positive act; an omission is not sufficient.

Question 7

Can an omission qualify as a positive act for UAM?

Answer 7

No, unlawful act manslaughter requires a positive act.

Question 8

Why is an omission insufficient for unlawful act manslaughter?

Answer 8

Because UAM requires an active conduct that is unlawful and dangerous.

Question 9

Give an example of a positive act leading to UAM.

Answer 9

Physically assaulting someone, leading to their death.

Question 10

What case demonstrates that an omission is insufficient for UAM?

Answer 10

There is no specific case because UAM does not apply to omissions.

Question 11

What is required regarding the nature of the act in UAM?

Answer 11

The act must be unlawful.

Question 12

What types of crimes typically constitute an unlawful act in UAM?

Answer 12

Assault, battery, ABH, GBH, burglary, robbery, and criminal damage.

Question 13

Does the prosecution need to prove intent to kill in UAM?

Answer 13

No, they only need to prove intent for the underlying unlawful act.

Question 14

What did R v Ball illustrate about the unlawful act requirement?

Answer 14

It demonstrated that a mistaken belief does not make an act lawful if it is objectively dangerous.

Question 15

Why was the conviction upheld in DPP v Newbury despite the defendants’ age?

Answer 15

Because foresight of harm is not required; the act itself was dangerous and unlawful.

Question 16

What must the defendant have regarding mens rea in UAM?

Answer 16

The defendant must have the mens rea for the underlying criminal act.

Question 17

Do defendants need to foresee death or serious harm in UAM?

Answer 17

No, they only need to have the intent for the unlawful act.

Question 18

How does R v Lamb illustrate the lack of mens rea?

Answer 18

The defendants lacked intent for assault as both thought the gun would not fire, so there was no unlawful act.

Question 19

Is it necessary for the defendant to foresee harm resulting from their act?

Answer 19

No, as established in DPP v Newbury; there is no requirement to foresee harm.

Question 20

What case established that foresight of harm is not necessary in UAM?

Answer 20

DPP v Newbury.

Question 21

What makes an act ‘dangerous’ in UAM?

Answer 21

An act is dangerous if a sober and reasonable person would recognize it as carrying a risk of physical harm.

Question 22

What case established the ‘dangerous act’ test?

Answer 22

R v Church.

Question 23

How did R v Church define a dangerous act?

Answer 23

An act that a sober and reasonable person would recognize as risking some harm.

Question 24

What does R v Larkin illustrate about dangerous acts?

Answer 24

Waving a cut-throat razor was deemed dangerous as it posed an obvious risk of physical harm.

Question 25

Is it enough for the act to cause fear or apprehension?

Answer 25

No, fear alone is not sufficient; there must be a risk of physical harm.

Question 26

Can property damage qualify as a dangerous act in UAM?

Answer 26

Yes, if it carries a risk of physical harm to people.

Question 27

What case involved property damage in UAM?

Answer 27

R v Goodfellow, where an arson that killed people was considered a dangerous act.

Question 28

In R v Goodfellow, why was the property damage considered dangerous?

Answer 28

The arson carried an obvious risk of harm to people in the vicinity.

Question 29

Does R v Goodfellow show that intent to harm property can lead to UAM?

Answer 29

Yes, if the act creates a foreseeable risk of harm to others.

Question 30

Can an act against property be sufficient for UAM if there is no risk to people?

Answer 30

No, there must be a foreseeable risk of harm to others.

Question 31

Is fear or apprehension enough to qualify an act as dangerous in UAM?

Answer 31

No, there must be a risk of physical harm.

Question 32

What does R v Dawson demonstrate about fear and dangerous acts?

Answer 32

Causing fear alone, such as in a robbery, is insufficient if it does not carry a risk of physical harm.

Question 33

In R v Dawson, why was the robbery not considered a dangerous act?

Answer 33

The victim’s fear-induced heart attack was not foreseeable as there was no inherent risk of physical harm.

Question 34

What is required beyond fear to make an act dangerous?

Answer 34

A reasonable person must foresee a risk of physical harm.

Question 35

Can an act causing emotional upset qualify as a dangerous act?

Answer 35

No, emotional upset alone does not meet the standard for a dangerous act.

Question 36

What role does causation play in UAM?

Answer 36

The defendant’s act must cause the death of the victim.

Question 37

What is factual causation in UAM?

Answer 37

The 'but for' test – but for the defendant’s act, the death would not have occurred.

Question 38

What case demonstrates factual causation?

Answer 38

R v White (but not in UAM context, often applied generally).

Question 39

What is legal causation in UAM?

Answer 39

The act must be a significant and operative cause of death.

Question 40

What case illustrates legal causation as 'more than a minimal cause'?

Answer 40

R v Kimsey.

Question 41

What is an intervening act?

Answer 41

An event that breaks the chain of causation between the defendant’s act and the victim’s death.

Question 42

How might medical intervention affect causation in UAM?

Answer 42

If medical treatment is grossly negligent, it could break the chain of causation.

Question 43

What case discusses medical intervention in the context of causation?

Answer 43

R v Cheshire.

Question 44

What does R v Kennedy say about voluntary acts by the victim in UAM?

Answer 44

A voluntary act by the victim, like self-injection, may break the chain of causation.

Question 45

Does the chain of causation break if the victim’s actions are voluntary?

Answer 45

Yes, if the act is truly voluntary and not coerced.

Question 46

In DPP v Newbury, what was the court’s ruling on foresight of harm?

Answer 46

There is no need for the defendant to foresee harm for UAM.

Question 47

What did R v Cato demonstrate regarding causation in UAM?

Answer 47

Administering drugs can be seen as the cause of death if the defendant prepared and administered them.

Question 48

Why was R v Cato criticized regarding causation?

Answer 48

It linked the defendant’s conduct directly to the victim’s death, which some found overly strict.

Question 49

What did R v Kennedy clarify about causation and drug administration?

Answer 49

If the victim voluntarily self-administers drugs, it breaks the chain of causation.

Question 50

How does causation relate to foreseeability of harm?

Answer 50

The dangerous act must be a foreseeable risk of harm to be causative in UAM.

Question 51

If someone throws a punch, intending to frighten but not hurt, and the victim dies, can this be UAM?

Answer 51

Yes, if a reasonable person would see it as dangerous and it leads to death.

Question 52

If a defendant accidentally causes death during an attempted robbery, is this UAM?

Answer 52

Yes, as robbery is an unlawful and dangerous act.

Question 53

If property damage results in a fatal fire, could this be UAM?

Answer 53

Yes, if a reasonable person would foresee the risk of harm to others.

Question 54

Can UAM apply if the defendant did not intend or foresee death?

Answer 54

Yes, intent to harm or foresee death is not required, only the intent for the unlawful act.

Question 55

If a victim has a pre-existing condition exacerbated by the defendant’s act, is this UAM?

Answer 55

Yes, under the thin skull rule, the defendant must take the victim as they find them.

Question 56

What did R v Larkin establish about dangerous acts in UAM?

Answer 56

It showed that a reasonable person would see waving a razor as dangerous.

Question 57

What principle did R v Church establish in UAM?

Answer 57

The 'dangerousness test' – a reasonable person must foresee a risk of harm.

Question 58

Why was the unlawful act in R v Dawson not sufficient for UAM?

Answer 58

The robbery only caused fear, not an actual risk of physical harm.

Question 59

How does R v Goodfellow illustrate UAM with property damage?

Answer 59

Arson was dangerous as it posed a risk of harm to others nearby.

Question 60

In R v Lamb, why was UAM not applicable?

Answer 60

There was no assault as neither party thought the gun would fire, so no unlawful act.