Involuntary Manslaughter Flashcards
(30 cards)
Involuntary Manslaughter and explain the three types
Where D commits the murder without the MR
Common Law offences:
- Constructive Manslaughter (unlawful act) (The most common one)
- Gross Negligence Manslaughter
- Reckless Manslaughter
Definition of Constructive Unlawful Act Manslaughter
D commits a criminal act in dangerous circumstances, and this causes the death of V.
D hits V in the pub
V hits his head and dies
A base offence from which you can construct liability for manslaughter due to death
Gross Negligence Manslaughter
D causes V’s death by breaching duty of care -> gross negligence
Reckless Manslaughter
D causes V’s death, reckless as to that result.
Actus Reus of Unlawful act manslaughter
1.) An unlawful act
2.) Dangerous
3.) Caused Death
Can you explain what an unlawful act means?
An unlawful act (1st AR)
1) Omissions are not sufficient even where there is a duty of care **[*Lowe] **
2.) Act has to be criminal in itself (assault) YES (dangerous driving) NO perDPP v Andrews
3.) Must Satisfy AR + MR of base offence as per **R v Lamb **
4.) And lack a defence for that base offence
*R v Slingsby (1995)
R v Slingsby -> AR + MR But was a succesful defence -> Consent OAPA up t
Cases on first AR of manslaughter which shed light on what is an immoral act?
R v Andrews - Acts have to be intrinsically criminal
*Contradicted by *
R v Meeking - negligence based offence could be considered as unlawful act manslaughter
2nd Element of AR for Unlawful Act Manslaughter
The Criminal act must be dangerous
1.) R v Church - All sober people and reasonable people would foresee risk of harm + risk of some harm (OBJECTIVE)
2.) **R v JF ** -> Irrelevant if D can/cannot foresee the risk (setting fire to building) + age (mental capacity) does not matter
Special knowledge taken into consideration -> Giving insulin to someone is not unlawful (but if they are diabetic)
R v JF 2 kids set fire to building and killed homeless man inside.
Special knowledge -
D gives V a pill at a party.
D knows that V has a serious heart condition, and the pill might trigger it.
V takes the pill and dies.
The 2nd element of the actus reus could be considered as subjective. Identify what part is subjective and which caselaw clarifies what it means.
all sober and reasonable people
Would all sober and reasonable people foresee a risk of some physical harm to some person from the act?”
- Dawson - The reasonable person can only be expected to know what the defendant actually knew at the time.
- Watson - If D becomes aware of the vulnerability of the victim during his unlawful act, when determining whether a sober and reasonable person would find physical harm to be likely, the jury has that knowledge.
- **Carey **- FRIGHT NOT SUFFICIENT HARM
Watson - Broke into V’s (87 year old) house and restrained her.
Dawson -
- Three masked men, attempted to rob a petrol station using replica guns.
- The cashier, serious heart condition, was frightened and later died from a heart attack.
- The robbers didn’t know about his condition.
Why might the second element of AR contradict rules of causation?
Think skull rule does not apply. We take what the Defendant knows about the individual.
Actus Reus element number 3 Unlawful Act Manslaughter
- Normal Causation Rules Apply
But (Kennedy)
B. Fright and Flight
V’s actions will break chain of causation only if they are “so daft” or not “reasonably foreseeable”
But if V appears healthy may be hard to demonstrate reasonably foreseeable risk of harm in flight
**Carey **
The act must cause the death
Kennedy - charged with unlawful act manslaughter, but addict was seen as V who broke chain of causation
Mens Rea for unlawful act manslaughter
D must have had the fault element relied upon
Intention to cause harm is irrelevant (see below case)
But the actual mens rea is whatever the mens rea of the unlawful act is
** DPP v Newbury and Jones [1976]**
Criticisms by judges, academics and Law Commission
Unlawful Act manslaughter
Inconsistency with causation principles:
It is submitted that if consideration is to be given to the victim’s attributes, then it should include other personal characteristics so as to keep in line with Blaue. To ascribe only obvious ailments to the sober and reasonable bystander is unfair in the sense that it does not recognise the likes of Aimee as a potential candidate for a cardiovascular complaint, and ideally the doctrine of ‘take your victim as you find him’ should apply in cases such as Dawson and Carey.” (Cherkassky, 2008)
Criticisms by judges, academics and Law Commission
Unlawful Act Manslaugher
What about scope of ‘unlawful act’?
“the range of offences which can amount to the “unlawful act” foundation of unlawful act manslaughter has become too wide, and that this case demonstrates that fact. No longer is the requirement of an act that is “criminal per se” being properly applied, leading to potential liability for death for those whose original action is far removed from the likelihood of causing death or serious injury… The effect is to breach the correspondence and fair-labelling principles” (Freer, 2018)
What is Gross Negligence Manslaughter
1.) No evidence that D foresaw death or serious injury resulting from his/her conduct and there is no unlawful and dangerous act upon which to graft liability.
2.) For those performing a lawful activity in a criminally careless fashion, + omission to do something they should have done.
3.) Extreme exception to serious offences being imposed when D makes a choice to harm or to risk harm AUTONOMY
Maximum sentence = involuntary manslaughter due to negligence can
R v Adomako [1995]
Lord MacKay
D (an anaesthetist) failed to notice a detached tube supplying oxygen to his patient (V). V died.
Leading clase for gross negligence manslaughter
Elements: Gross Negligence Manslaughter
1.) D owed a duty of care (duty to act for omissions)
2.) D breached duty of care
3.) Death occurred as a result of this breach of duty
4.) Gross negligence
Examples of Gross negligence manslaughter
- parents who neglect their children
1ST ELEMENT OF AR Gross Negligence Manslaughter
**Duty of Care Exists **
1.) DoC can still exist when parties are jointly involved in unlawful activity Wacker [2003]
2.) Can be committed by omission:
Standard rules of omission liability apply – situational liability as well
Evans
Wacker - D smuggled 6 illegal immigrants and shut air vent which was carrying illegal immigrants. Some of them died. If this was civil, the fact the V embarked illegal venture it would have undermined. But not in criminal. So they do count.
Evans - Creation of dangerous situation
Examples of recognised duties
1.) Trades – building, plumbing, electricity (Holloway (1994)
2.) Driving a car (motor manslaughter Andrews or crossing a road
3.) Caring Roles Parents (Gibbins and Proctor (1918)
4.**Contractual Roles ** Pittwood
- Non-specific activities –R V Lamb (1967) CA, R v Evans (2009 CA)
Non-specifc activities such as drug supply in evans.
Duty to act is more limited than duty of care
2nd Element of AR Gross Negligence Manslaugther
Breach of Duty
Explain the Breach of Duty
- Did D’s conduct fall below that expected of a reasonable person in her position/with a certain skill?
***Adomako ** see footnotes
- Level of Risk Kuddus Reasonably foreseeable that the breach of that duty gave rise to a serious and obvious risk of death
- Risk of Death to who?
Kuddus: “class of people to whom duty was owed”
-
Who foresees risk of death?
Objective - NOT the D’s perspective is irelevant - *(Rose [2017]). The level of reasonable foresight is assessed at prior to the breach of duty
Adomako
1.) The more serious the breach of duty the more likely liable
2.) Was there an obvious risk of death (anything less than that does not amount to breach)
Kuddus
D new owner and chef to a restaurant. V added only prawns and nuts in the allergy section. Passed on to old owner but not onto new owner. V died. D charged with gross negligence manslaughter. Courts said, however, risk of death was not so serious and obvious. Having the wrong system does not foresee death.
Hypothetical examples of Adomako Breach
🔹 Example 1: “Seriousness of the Breach” – Nurse Olivia
Scenario:
Nurse Olivia is responsible for checking oxygen levels in patients overnight.
She forgets to check one patient’s monitor due to being distracted by personal phone calls.
The oxygen supply disconnects, and the patient suffers a brain injury.
Analysis:
Duty of care? Yes – as a nurse.
Breach of duty? Yes – she failed to monitor vital signs.
Seriousness? Her conduct might be considered very serious because:
It was a basic and critical duty.
She was distracted by something avoidable (phone use).
There was a clear risk of harm or death if oxygen levels dropped.
Conclusion: This could amount to gross negligence, especially given the seriousness and the avoidable nature of her breach.
🔹 Example 2: “So Bad It’s Criminal” – Builder Dan
Scenario:
Dan is a builder constructing scaffolding on a busy street.
He uses substandard materials to save money, despite being warned by a supplier they’re unsafe.
The scaffolding collapses and kills a passerby.
Analysis:
Duty of care? Yes – to workers and the public.
Breach of duty? Definitely – knowingly using unsafe materials.
Risk of death? Very clear – scaffolding collapse can be fatal.
“So bad it’s criminal?” The jury could reasonably find this conduct grossly negligent:
He had clear warnings.
He chose to cut corners to save money.
The decision was reckless and showed disregard for life.
Conclusion: This is a strong case for gross negligence manslaughter under Adomako.
AR 3 Gross Negligence Manslaughter
Standard causation principles
D’s breach caused death
V would not have died in the same way if she had been treated reasonably
For omission liability – what would a reasonable person in D’s position have done? Would that action have prevented V dying in the manner she did?
