Involuntary Manslaughter Flashcards
(36 cards)
1
Q
R v Bristow [2013]
A
- D and others comitted a burglary, hitting V with a vehicle whilst fleeing
- This case provides us with the 3 elements of unlawful act manslaughter
- Burglarly is not ordinarily considered dangerous, but it depends on the circumstances -> here, they used a vehicle
-> (1) an unlawful act performed intentionally, (2) in circumstances rendering it dangerous, (3) causing death
2
Q
R v Franklin (1883)
A
- D threw a large box off a pier into the sea, hitting V, who was swimming and died
- D’s act would be unlawful under tort or contract, but D argued that for UAM you need a criminally unlawful act
- Crown Court held thar jury could only consider negligent manslaughter -> an action that is unlawful in civil law is not enough for UAM
3
Q
R v Andrews [1937]
A
- D overtook a car in front of them, speeding, and hit a pedestrian
- kept driving and pretended he hadn’t been there the next day
- the act must fall “under not just mere negligence”
- “simple lack of care such as will constitute civil liability is not enough” for UAM
- “a very high degree of negligence is required to be proved” to constitute a criminal offence
- D was convicted of manslaughter by dangerous driving
4
Q
R v Meeking [2012]
A
- UAM can’t be a case of negligence
- D had an argument with her husband and pulled the hand brake whilst he was driving
- car swerved and he died
- she was convicted of UAM
- Court held you shouldn’t charge cases of negligence as UAM -> even cases where the negligence falls short of gross -> it should still be charged under gnm
- BUT Court said that in this case, both convictions would’ve ended up with the same verdict
- I personally got confused with this case, but oh well :)
5
Q
R v Lamb [1967]
A
- 2 young men messing around with a revolver, don’t know how to use a gun
- D shoots his friend without meaning to
- Court accepts that this wasn’t an assault because V didn’t realise the gun could shoot and so didn’t apprehend violence
- also, D had no intention, which was necessary for assault at the time -> a reasonable mistake can vitiate intent
- there was no mens rea so no UAM as the base offence has not been committed
- recklessness can suffice as mens rea
- “mens rea […] now an essential ingredient of manslaughter”
6
Q
R v Kennedy [2007]
A
- D prepared a dose of heroin for V, and then V self-injected the heroin
- where a person supplies a controlled drug to a fully informed and responsible adult, who then freely and voluntarily administers the drug, D is not guilty of manslaughter
- sets out 3 requirements for the act to be a full crime for UAM
1. D committed an unlawful act
2. the unlawful act was a crime
3. D’s unlawful act was a signficant cause of V’s death
7
Q
R v Grey [2024]
A
- D gesticulated at a cyclist who was on the pavement
- cyclist then fell off the bike into the path of a car
- upheld Kennedy
8
Q
R v Lowe [1973]
A
- Mr Lowe had low intelligence -> didn’t call a doctor for his sick infant
- child then died -> D convicted of manslaughter by negligence and wilfully neglecting a child
- Court held that the neglect was wilful, as it was deliberate
- BUT he was not reckless, he didn’t intend to neglect and he didn’t foresee the risk of not calling a doctor -> court held that his omission shouldn’t have led to a manslaughter conviction
- “there is a clear distinction between an act of omission and an act of commission likely to cause harm”
- “a charge of manslaughter should not be an inevitable consequence, even if the omission is deliberate”
9
Q
R v Mitchell [1983]
A
- D & S got in a scuffle
- D pushed S, who fell into V (an old lady) who got injured and later died
- this case exemplified the principle of transferred malice
- “the criminality of the doer of the act is precisely the same whether it is A or B who dies”
10
Q
AG’s Reference (No. 3 of 1994) [1998]
A
- B stabbed his pregnant girlfriend who gave birth prematurely to V, who later died
- couldn’t be murder -> B had no intention to kill V
- couldn’t be transferred malice of intent to harm because child in utero is not a person
- B could be convicted of manslaughter becasue he ticked the four questions below
1. Whether the act was done intentionally
2. whether it was unlawful
3. whether it was also dangerous because it was likely to cause harm to somebody
4. whether that […] act caused the death - doesn’t matter that the person towards whom the harm was directed wasn’t the one who died
11
Q
R v Dhaliwal [2006]
A
- D harrassed his wife repeatedly until she committed suicide
- court held that in principle, if D inflicts physical and/or psychological abuse on V and thereby causes her some kind of recognised psychiatric illness (ie injury amounting in law to actual or grievous bodily harm for the purposes of the Offences Against th Person Act 1861, s 47 or s 20) his conduct may give rise to liability for manslaughter (ie constructive manslaughter) should V choose to commit suicide
- in this case, prosecution couldn’t prove that V had suffered psychiatric injury -> mere psychological harm is not enough
12
Q
R v Lipman [1970]
A
- D strangled V after taking LSD believing he was fighting off a serpent in teh centre of the earth
- convicted of uam
- appealed with the defence of intoxication
- Court held that voluntary intoxication is no defence to uam -> not a crime of specific intent
13
Q
R v Church [1966]
A
- D knocked V out during a fight -> dumped her body in a river, thinking she was dead
- found that V died from drowning
- judge directed jury to consider “whole course of conduct of the accused as one”
- “the unlawful act must be such as all sober and reasonable people would inevitably recognise must subject the other person to, at least, the risk of some harm resulting therefrom, albeit not serious harm”
14
Q
DPP v Newbury & Jones [1977]
A
- Ds (15 yrs) pushed paving stone onto a bridge, killing a guard
- convicted of constructive manslaughter -> appealed that they didn’t foresee the danger
- for constructive manslaughter (uam), the test for whether the unlawful act is likely to cause harm is objective
- “In judging whether the act was dangerous, the test is not did the accused recognise that it was dangerous but would all sober and reasonable people recognise its danger”
15
Q
R v Dawson [1985]
A
- Ds robbed petrol station & threatened V (60 yrs) with fake gun
- V later died of heart attack, because of the shock
- Ds convicted of uam -> appealed that they didn’t know about his heart condition
- Harm “includes injury to the person through the operation of shock emanating from fright … if the unlawful act so shocks the victim as to cause him physical injury”
- “Emotional disturbance without more is not enough”
- The sober & reasonable person has “the same knowledge” as D
- appeal allowed -> the physical harm must be foreseeable knowing the same info as Ds
16
Q
R v Watson [1989]
A
- D broke into house of V (87yrs) and verbally abused him
- V had serious heart condition and died of heart attack
- D convicted of uam, apealed that he didn’t know the age or physical condition of the occupier when he broke into the house (the ar of the offence of burglary)
- Appeal allowed overall, but this appeal point was rejected -> Court held that if D becomes aware of the vulnerability of V during the unlawful act, then he has that knowledge for when determining if a reasonable person would find physical harm likely
17
Q
R v Ball [1989]
A
- D involved in dispute with neighbour
- appellant went to his house, he grabbed shotgun & what he thought were blanks; they weren’t, he shot her, she died
- he was convicted of uam -> appealed that his belief should’ve been taken into account
- appeal was dismissed
- D’s own belief / appreciation of the situation is irrelevant
18
Q
R v Carey [2006]
A
- Ds became physically violent towards V and her friends
- V ran away, but collapsed and died -> she had a weak heart
- conviction quashed because the cause of death was her running, not the physical assault, and no reasonable person would’ve foreseen that
- “it would not have been recognised by a sober and reasonable bystander that an apprently healthy 15 year old (or indeed anyone else present) was at risk of suffering shock as a result of this affray”
- even if V had suffered shock rather than emotional upset
19
Q
R v JM and SM [2012]
A
- Ds got in a fight with V and others -> V died because of a health issue
- The reasonable bystander does not have to recognise “the precise form or “sort” of harm which did ensue” -> “has never been a requirement”
- the only requirement is whether a reasonable person would have recognised the risk of some harm
- “the question whether the reasonable sober person would inevitably recognise the risk of harm would go beyond concern […] to physical harm in the form of shock would have to be resolved as a question of fact rather than law”
20
Q
R v Bristow, Dunn & Delay [2013]
A
- Ds involved in burglary where V was killed by being hit by one of the vehicles
- burglary in this case was dangerous because of risk of intervention & use of vehicles
- The type of crime is not necessarily determinative of the issue
- burglary is not ordinarily dangerous BUT it depends on the circumstances of the case
21
Q
R v Long (Henry) [2020]
A
- V was dragged by a vehicle and killed
- conspiracy to steal
- circumstances surrounding commission of offence may render it dangerous
- regarded as dangerous since Ds agreed to drive dangerously and as fast as possible to escape from police if needed
22
Q
R v Adomako [1995]
A
- D (anaesthetist) didn’t notice that a tube disconnected during an operation -> it took him 9 mins to figure out what happened
- V suffered cardiac arrest and died
- D convicted of gnm -> appealed
- Appeal dismissed
- set out the test for gnm
- 2 medical experts called to give evidence -> 1 said D’s work had been abysmal, 2 said that it should’ve taken D 15 secs to figure out what was wrong -> his conduct constituted a gross breach
- “… whether, having regard to the risk of death involved, the conduct of the defendant was so bad in all the circumstances as to amount in their judgment to a criminal act or omission”
23
Q
R v Gemma Evans [2009]
quote
A
- D charged with gnm after providing her half-sister with heroin -> which V then self-injected
- D then noticed that she had symptoms of overdose, but didn’t call medical services
- V was dead by next morning
- D convicted of gnm -> appealed that her providing the heroin did not burden her with a duty of care
- conviction upheld -> D has a duty if she contributed to or created a dangerous situation
-> “for the purposes of GNM, where D has created or contributed to a state of affairs which they know or ought reasonable to know has become life-threatening, a consequent duty upon him to act by taking reasonable steps to save the other’s life will normally arise” - judge was wrong to say that jury decide if there is a duty of care -> whether or not there is a duty of care is a question of law -> BUT jury decides whether it applies to the facts e.g. in this case, the jury need to decide whether D had given V the drugs
can be compared to Kennedy, but there D left, here D stayed and saw V deteriorating but didn’t act
24
Q
R v Winter and Winter [2010]
A
- D stored unlicensed and dangerous fireworks
- when their store was set aflame, they failed to state that there were fireworks inside -> exploded killing an officer & civilian
- “You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour […] - persons who are so closely and directly affected by your act”
25
R v Wacker [2002]
- 60 illegal immigrants in a lorry; air vent shut after they got in -> 2 survived
- D argued that you don't owe a duty to anyone if you engage in criminal activity
- latin maxim -> ex turpi causa non oritur actio -> from a dishonourable cause, no damage arises
- CoA didn't approve of this -> denied the latin maxim here
- "When considering questions of law [...] look at an issue of law without [...] becoming embroiled in the technicalities of the law"
- this is the correct solution for public policy
26
R v Singh [1999]
- D was a landlord -> owed a duty to his tenant who died from carbon monoxide poisoning caused by the gas boiler
- D found to have had sufficient info about danger of gas fires to take action
- convicted of gnm
- "a serious and obvious risk not merely of injury or even serious injury but of death"
27
R v Misra [2004]
- D was doctor convicted of gnm in relation to death of patients
- D argued that the test of 'a risk of death' was too unclear -> it breached article 7 ECHR
- CoA held that gnm was made clear in Adomako and so wasn't a breach
- "Adomako demonstrates, and it is now clearly established, that it relates to the risk of death"
- “… the term “mens rea” is … used to described the ingredient of fault or culpability required before criminal liability for the defendant’s actions may be established … Manslaughter by gross negligence is not an absolute offence. The requirement for gross negligence provides the necessary element of culpability”
28
R v Rudling [2017]
- parent of V called on the phone, D didn't diagnose correctly (V had very rare disease called Addisons)
- D should've sent immediate ambulance attention rather than stating to wait until Monday
- BUT it wasn't expected that the doctor could've diagnosed V for Addisons without seeing him -> it wasn't reasonably foreseeable that there is a serious risk of death
- “a serious risk of death … is not to be equated with an ‘inability to eliminate a possibility’
- “An obvious risk is a present risk which is clear and unambiguous”
- high bar for gnm in medical cases
29
R v Rose (Honey) [2017]
-
- D was an optometrist - performed routine eye examination
- V fell ill from buildup of brain fluid (hydrocephalus) and died
- V's cause of death was recognisable at time of D's eye test -> D had a statutory duty to perform such an examination during routine eye-tests
- D had accidently viewed last year's images -> D convicted but appealed
- Appeal allowed -> D acquitted as there was no serious and obvious risk of death at point of breach
- mere possibility that an assessment might reveal something life-threatening is not the same as an obvious risk of death
- the test is objective and prospective -> "it is not what would, could or should have been known"
- last comment in Rose highlights that if someone is wilfully blind – they will not escape in negligence
- a recognisable risk of something serious is not the same as a recognisable risk of death
30
R v Kuddus [2019]
- V ordered takeaway curry from restaurant, owned by D
- V stated she was allergic to peanuts, but food had peanuts and V died
- D convicted of gnm -> appealed
- Court held that (1) if customer states they have an allergy, duty extends to restaurant to ensure their health
- (2) CoA stated that the question of serious risk is whether there is a serious and obvious risk towards the person to whom the duty is owed -> someone with an allergy has a serious and obvious risk
- "The seriousness of the risk of death [...] is itself a question of fact [...] distinct from the question whether [...] should have foreseen that the risk was serious
## Footnote
D was released here because it was proven he didn't know about the allergy
31
R v Sellu [2016]
- D was convicted of gnm after V (a patient) died after a routine knee surgery
- highlighted importance of correct direction by judges to jury in these cases
- jury needs to be helped in understanding the difference between serious mistakes and actions that are “truly exceptionally bad and was such a departure from that standard [of a reasonably competent doctor] that it consequently amounted to being criminal”
32
R v Broughton [2020]
- question of whether V would have survived -> not might she have survived
- D and his girlfriend were at a music festival
- V injected herself with drugs that D supplied, but she had a bad reaction and eventually died
- D was convicted of gnm, as he had a duty to call for medical help when he saw she was unwell -> he appealed that his negligence wasn't proven to have caused death of V
- Court offered summary of elements of gnm:
1. D owed an existing duty of care to V
2. D negligently breached that duty of care
3. At the time of the breach there was a serious and obvious risk of death, and this was reasonably foreseeable. Serious, in this context, qualifies the nature of the risk of death as something much more than minimal or remote. Risk of injury or illness, even serious injury or illness, is not enough. An obvious risk is one that is present, clear, and unambiguous. It is immediately apparent, striking and glaring rather than something that might become apparent on further investigation
4. The breach of the duty caused or made a significant (i.e. more than minimal) contribution to the death of the victim
5. In the view of the jury, the circumstances of the breach were truly exceptionally bad and so reprehensible as to justify the conclusion that it amounted to gross negligence and required criminal sanction
- point 4 was the main contentious point here -> medical expert stated she would've had 90% chance of surviving if help had been called at the point when D realised there was a serious risk of death
- D was acquitted -> couldn't say beyond reasonable doubt that she would've survived -> 10% chance she would've died
- BUT this was in the medical sense -> legally, her surviving a few more hours could be considered a significant length of time -> should've left this question to the jury?
33
R v Bateman (1925)
- D (medical practitioner) messed up when delivering stillborn and fatally injured mother, and then delayed in sending her to infirmary - she died
- CoA quashed conviction -> found it unsafe because judge allowed jury to consider certain aspects as negligent
- degree of negligence is higher than negligence in tort
- “such disregard for the life and safety of others as to amount to a crime against the State and conduct deserving punishment”
34
AG’s Reference (No. 2 of 1999) [2000]
- D was train driver -> train crashed and killed 7 people
- D didn't have a second driver, missed 2 yellow signals, both safety devices preventing the train passing a signal were turned off
- D prosecuted on gnm
- Judge ruled that D needed a guilty mind to prove gnm
- Court held that D's state of mind can be relevant (a reckless D is more likely to be more readily found guilty of gnm) but it is not required -> D can be convicted of gnm in absence of MR
- Prosecution doesn't have to prove a particular state of mind on D's part
35
R v Bawa-Garba [2016]
- D (junior paediatrics doctor) -> convicted of gnm -> contributed to V's death
- court rejected appeal
- the jury [...] should be left in no doubt as to the truly exceptional degree of negligence which must be established if it is to be made out
- "serious neglect which fell so far below the standard of care expected of competent professionals that it amounted to the criminal offence of manslaughter by gross negligence"
36
R v Morby
- D's son died of smallpox -> D didn't seek medical assistance for religious reasons
- Court quashed conviction -> evidence didn't show that V would've survived had he received medical help -> only that he might
- held that to convict of manslaughter, it must be shown that the neglect had the effect of shortening life (causing or accelerating death)
