Involuntary Manslaughter Flashcards
(36 cards)
1
Q
Unlawful Act Manslaughter
A
The accused lacks the mens rea for murder but kills someone in the course of committing an unlawful (criminal) act.
2
Q
DPP v Newbury & Jones [1976]
Characteristics For
Unlawful Act Manslaughter
A
- The defendant must do an intentional act
- The act must be unlawful
- The act must be dangerous
- The act must cause the death
2 15-year-old boys pushed a paving stone over a bridge parapet onto a passing train, killing the guard.
3
Q
R v Lowe [1973]
An Intentional Act
Unlawful Act Manslaughter
A
-
Liability can only be based on a positive act, not an omission
- Lowe charged with manslaughter of 2-month-old daughter. Basis of this offence was failure to ensure that she was seen by a doctor, despite deteriorating condition. He was unemployed so at home so could see what was going on. Held involuntary act manslaughter cannot be based on a failure to act.
4
Q
R v Franklin [1883]
An Unlawful Act
Unlawful Act Manslaughter
A
Must be a crime, not just a tort
5
Q
Andrews v DPP [1937]
An Unlawful Act
Unlawful Act Manslaughter
A
-
The act must be intrinsically unlawful. Liability cannot be based on negligence.
- Andrews driving over 30mph in a pedestrian area when he hit a pedestrian who was killed. Held that even though was an unlawful act, was not an unlawful act suitable for unlawful act manslaughter. Obvious difference between doing an unlawful act and doing a lawful act with a degree of carelessness which the law deems criminal.
6
Q
R v Lamb [1967]
An Unlawful Act
Unlawful Act Manslaughter
A
-
All elements of the offence must be made out - A/R + M/R
- Lamb and friend playing with a revolver (2 rounds in chamber were loaded but wasn’t a game of Russian roulette) and friend was shot (neither had any inclination that this would happen). Only crime could have been assault but couldn’t make either element.
7
Q
R v Scarlett [1993]
An Unlawful Act
Unlawful Act Manslaughter
A
-
Must be no defences
- Scarlet was a publican removing a drunk after closing time; drunk swung at Scarlet, Scarlet pinned drunk’s arms to side, bundled him out, drunk fell down some stairs, hit his head, and later died. Scarlet would have been entitled to defence of self-defence and so there was no unlawful act.
8
Q
R v Church [1966]
The Act Must be Dangerous
Unlawful Act Manslaughter
A
-
Objective test – would reasonable man have seen some harm?
- “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.”
9
Q
R v Dawson [1985]
The Act Must be Dangerous
Type of Harm
Unlawful Act Manslaughter
A
- Must be physical harm and not emotional harm – robbed a petrol station, covered faces; smashed pick up axe on counter, threatened Black with a gun, but he pressed alarm and they ran away. Victim had a heart attack and died. Had had 2 previous heart attacks and had angina.
- Watkins LJ: no sensible reason why shock produced by fright should not come within the definition of harm in the context… Shock can produce devastating and lasting effects, for instance upon the nervous system. That is surely harm.
10
Q
R v Watson [1989]
The Act Must be Dangerous
Type of Harm
Unlawful Act Manslaughter
A
-
Certain people are more likely to suffer physical harm when frightened.
- Narrow arteries in this case. Held that the reasonable man knows that elder people have narrower arteries. Burglary caused the heart failure.
11
Q
R v JM & SM [2012]
The Act Must be Dangerous
Type of Harm
Unlawful Act Manslaughter
A
-
No need for the reasonable man to foresee the type of harm which led to the death.
- Brothers ejected from nightclub. J returned and kicked the door. S and 1 bouncer fell down a flight of steps. Other bouncer died of a ruptured aneurism caused by high blood pressure. A reasonable person would not have foreseen increased blood pressure so not guilty. On appeal court said that no need to foresee type of harm. If you push people down stairs and in a fight, there is a risk of some harm.
12
Q
R v Dawson [1985]
The Act Must be Dangerous
Knowledge of the Reasonable Man
Unlawful Act Manslaughter
A
-
Reasonable man will be in the shoes of the defendant.
- Reasonable person would not know that victim had previously had a heart attack and suffered from angina.
13
Q
R v Watson [1989]
The Act Must be Dangerous
Knowledge of the Reasonable Man
Unlawful Act Manslaughter
A
-
Knowledge which would become apparent during the course of the unlawful act.
- Watson and accomplice broke into house, accosted by owner who was frail, elderly man, who they abused. Owner died 90 mins later from a heart attack brought on by break-in. CoA said once the reasonable man had seen age of owner, they would have foreseen risk of some harm.
14
Q
R v Farnon [2015]
The Act Must be Dangerous
Knowledge of the Reasonable Man
Unlawful Act Manslaughter
A
Reasonable man has any special knowledge D has both before and at the time of the unlawful act.
15
Q
R v Ball [1989]
The Act Must be Dangerous
Knowledge of the Reasonable Man
Unvoluntary Act Manslaughter
A
-
The jury do not take into account mistakes by the defendant.
- Argument between Ball and G. G left property and as she was climbing over a wall, he shot her. Said he kept live and blank cartridges in his pocket. He said only intended to frighten her. Reasonable man would know some bullets were live so would have seen the risk of harm.
- Reasonable man would also not have made the mistake – live cartridges are heavier.
16
Q
R v Kennedy (No 2) [2007]
The Act Must Cause Death
Causing Death by Administering Dangerous Drugs
Unlawful Act Manslaughter
A
- Where defendant has injected victim he has committed an unlawful act as he has directly administered a noxious substance - s 23 OAPA 1861 – and if she dies all the elements of unlawful act manslaughter have been met
17
Q
R v Kennedy (No 2) [2007]
The Act Must Cause Death
Causing Death by Supplying Dangerous Drugs
Unlawful Act Manslaughter
A
- Where the defendant supplies the drug, but the victim then voluntarily consumes it, in awareness of what they are taking, the defendant should never be guilty of manslaughter if the victim is a fully-informed and responsible adult. (per Bingham). The chain of causation is broken by a free, informed, deliberate act.
18
Q
Gross Negligence Manslaughter
A
- Unlike unlawful act manslaughter, there is no requirement that the defendant was involved in a criminal act.
- The basis of a charge is where defendant has breached a duty of care owed to the victim.
- This can be done through an act or omission but must be considered so bad to necessitate a criminal charge.
19
Q
R v Adomako [1995]
Characteristics for
Gross Negligence Manslaughter
A
- Defendant must owe a duty of care
- He must have breached that duty
- The breach must cause death
- There must be an obvious and serious risk of death
- The breach must amount to gross negligence
20
Q
R v Adomako [1995]
Duty of Care
Involuntary Manslaughter
A
-
Normal rules of negligence apply to ascertain whether defendant in breach of duty of care
- Everyone has a general duty to take care to avoid injury by a positive act to his neighbour.
- Liability can also arise for an omission in circumstances where the defendant is under a specific duty to act.
21
Q
R v Wacker [2003]
Duty of Care
Involuntary Manslaughter
A
- Argued no duty of care. Lorry driver people smuggling 60 illegal immigrants. Ventilation provided by small vent; closed for 5 hours during sea crossing; 58 had died; Wacker’s finger prints found on vent. Law of negligence as a whole is not relevant; just when looking for a duty. Knew he had to close the vent so he had a duty to make sure they were safe.
22
Q
R v Ruffell [2003]
Duty of Care
Involuntary Manslaughter
A
-
Where an omission lies at heart of liability, have to show that defendant had a duty to act
- R supplied drugs to victim who suffered a severe adverse reaction. R tried various things like putting victim in very cold bath to try to revive him. Next day rang victim’s mother and told her she would find her son outside the house. Very cold weather and died from a combination of very cold weather and drugs. R had breached a duty of care by omitting to take him to hospital/calling a doctor.
23
Q
R v Singh [1999]
Duty of Care
Involuntary Manslaughter
A
-
Where an omission lies at heart of liability, have to show that defendant had a duty to act
- Singh was son of owner of builder split into bedsits who acted as rent collector, maintenance man and link between tenants and father. Several tenants told him of problems with gas fires including smell of gas and symptoms of carbon monoxide poisoning over 4 months but didn’t do anything. In 1996 one of the tenants died of carbon monoxide poisoning. Singh, father, and fitter all convicted of manslaughter.
24
Q
Breach of Care
Gross Negligence Manslaughter
A
- Breach: normal rules of negligence apply
- Did the defendant behave like a reasonable man / professional?
25
Causation
Gross Negligence Manslaughter
* **Normal rules apply**
* **If omission, note what defendant didn’t do and see if he had a duty to do it**
26
R v Adomako [1995]
An Obvious and Serious Risk of Death
Gross Negligence Manslaughter
**Has to be a risk of death. Objective test.**
27
R v Singh [1999]
An Obvious and Serious Risk of Death
Gross Negligence Manslaughter
Must be **an obvious and serious risk of death**
28
R v Misra & Srivastava [2005]
An Obvious and Serious Risk of Death
Gross Negligence Manslaughter
* Must be **an obvious and serious risk of death**
* **Confirmed decision in Singh**
29
R v Rose [2018]
An Obvious and Serious Risk of Death
Gross Negligence Manslaughter
* **There must be an obvious and serious risk at the time of the breach of duty.**
* Performed a routine sight test on a 7yr old boy but had failed to use an ophthalmoscope to view his optic nerves. **Had a duty to do this which would have revealed the boy was suffering from a serious illness**. At trial, was ruled **a competent optician would have conducted this examination, seen the nerve was swollen, referred boy for medical treatment and saved his life**. Criteria not fulfilled in Rose’s case**. Not an obvious risk of death so couldn’t convict and initial conviction overturned.**
30
R v Adomako [1995]
Was the defendant grossly negligent?
Gross Negligence Manslaughter
* “The **jury** will have to **consider** whether the **extent to which** the **defendant's conduct departed from the proper standard of care incumbent upon him**, **involving as it must have done a risk of death to the patient**, was **such that it should be judged criminal**”
* Lord MacKay -‘The **essence of the matter which is** supremely a jury question is 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**.’
31
R v Adomako [1995]
Was the defendant grossly negligent?
Gross Negligence Manslaughter
* **A single devastating act can be grossly negligent**
* Anaesthetist attending operation. Tube keeping patient breathing became disconnected. After 4 minutes an alarm went off. Despite resuscitation attempts, patient died 9 minutes after disconnection. At no stage in 9 minutes was the tube connection checked. **Expert evidence said the duty of care was abysmal. Physical signs of patient turning blue would have made it obvious that lack of oxygen was the problem.**
32
R v Misra & Srivastava [2005]
Was the defendant grossly negligent?
Gross Negligence Manslaughter
* **Where the defendant is responsible for a series of acts/omissions rather than a single event, this may make it easier for the jury to find gross negligence**
* Victim developed infection following routine operation. 2 defendants responsible for post-operative care of patient for 48 hours between his operation and death. M (night shift), S (day shift).
* **Despite numerous signs of post-operative problems – high temperature, low blood pressure, low pulse; ignored advice, didn’t do tests etc. Catalogue of errors – grossly negligent**
33
R v Prentice & Sullman [1993]
Was the defendant grossly negligent?
Gross Negligence Manslaughter
* **Where D’s mistakes are in part or whole brought about by acts/ mistakes of others, this may be a reason for not convicting**
* **Circumstances partly brought about by failure of others, e.g. senior doctors to advise / supervise them, inadequacies of how drugs were stored so not found to be grossly negligent**.
* Junior doctors. P required to administer routine lumber injection to cancer sufferer. Hadn’t done it before so wasn’t sure if should. Registrar arranged for S to supervise (who had only done it once). S took the wrong drug from box of drugs and handed to P who injected. Patient died from reaction to wrong drug.
34
R v Singh [1999]
Was the defendant grossly negligent?
Gross Negligence Manslaughter
* **Can be gross negligence by defendant, even if others are also responsible for circs leading up to the death**, e.g. where defendant **has a personal responsibility and ability to discharge it**
* ****Singh should have conducted checks on gas fires on reports from tenants of carbon monoxide leaks
35
R v Litchfield [1998]
Was the defendant grossly negligent?
Gross Negligence Manslaughter
* Where the **defendant is responsible for a series of acts/omissions rather than a single event, this may make it easier for the jury to find gross negligence**
* **If D has seen the risk of causing death this is a very strong indicator of gross negligence**
* Owner/master of schooner used as passage between Cornwall and South Wales. Hit rocks near Padstow and 3 crew members died. Allegations against Litchfield were he had **failed to plan, and navigate safe passage and sailed far too close to the shore**. **Knew diesel fuel he’d bought was contaminated** and likely to fail. **Given experience must have seen the chances of death and danger to crew**. **Ignored basic rules** and should never have got into the muddle. Had contempt for dangers of shoreline and this was the cause of death. **Knew risk of using contaminated fuel**.
36
R v Adomako [1995]
Was the defendant grossly negligent?
Gross Negligence Manslaughter
There is **no requirement for defendant to be in any mental state**.
