Module 13, Section B - Fatal offences against the person (Involuntary manslaughter)

Question 1

What is involuntary manslaughter?

Answer 1

Unintentional killing caused by unlawful or negligent acts, without intent to kill or cause GBH.

Question 2

What are the three types of involuntary manslaughter

Answer 2

Unlawful act manslaughter
Gross negligence manslaughter
Subjective recklessness manslaughter

Question 3

What is unlawful act manslaughter?

Answer 3

Manslaughter resulting from an unlawful, dangerous act that causes death, even without intent to harm.

Question 4

What two cases does the law on unlawful act manslaughter come from?

Answer 4

R v Franklin (1883)
R v Church (1966)

Question 5

What was the legal outcome of R v Franklin (1883)?

Answer 5

R v Franklin (1883) established that D must perform an unlawful act
> Act must cause death (actus reus) and the D must have the required mens rea for the unlawful act (i.e. assault, arson, burglary)

Question 6

What did R v Franklin (1883) rule on surrounding unlawful act manslaughter and causation?

Answer 6

Unlawful acts must cause death; rules on causation are the same - if there is an intervening act, D cannot be liable for manslaughter; this has caused issues in many cases, such as drug-related cases

Question 7

What was the legal outcome of R v Cato (1976)?

Answer 7

D injected the victim with heroin, and the victim died; Cato was guilty of manslaughter (this act was contrary to OAPA 1861)

Question 8

What were the legal outcomes of Dalby (1982) and Kennedy (2007)?

Answer 8

Causation is broken if D prepares or supplies the drug BUT V injects themselves; D can only be guilty if he was involved in administering the injection

Question 9

What was the legal outcome of R v Rogers (2003)?

Answer 9

If D holds the victim or places and holds a belt around the victim’s arm, they cannot be guilty of manslaughter (MUST administer drug)

Question 10

What was the legal outcome of R v Church (1966)?

Answer 10

R v Church (1966) established the objective nature of the dangerous act
… ‘it must be such that all sober and reasonable people would inevitably recognise that it carried the risk of some harm.’

Question 11

What was the legal outcome of R v Dawson (1985)?

Answer 11

Scaring to death cannot be murder.

The court held that for unlawful act manslaughter, the unlawful act must be dangerous, meaning it must be such that all sober and reasonable people would inevitably recognise that it carried the risk of some harm.
- However, the defendants were not liable because the standard test for dangerousness is objective and does not take into account the victim’s hidden vulnerabilities (such as an unknown heart condition).
- Since a reasonable person would not have foreseen some physical harm from the attempted robbery alone (given no physical contact or violence), the act was not considered dangerous in law.

Question 12

What was the legal outcome of R v Larkin (1943)?

Answer 12

D cut and killed a female who was drunk and fell onto his blade while he was threatening another man with it (was given manslaughter)

Question 13

What was the legal outcome in R v Goodfellow (1986)?

Answer 13

D set fire to his house to be re-housed; kills his wife, child and another; establishes that there is no need for the unlawful act to be aimed at the victim(s); can be indirect - established in Larkin

Question 14

What is the required mens rea for unlawful act manslaughter?

Answer 14

D must also have the mens rea for the unlawful act
> It is not necessary for D to realise their act was unlawful or dangerous, or for D to have the mens rea for the murder.

Question 15

What case confirms the required mens rea for unlawful act manslaughter?

Answer 15

R v Newbury and Jones (1976)

Question 16

What happened in R v Newbury and Jones (1976)?

Answer 16

D pushed a paving stone off a bridge, striking the driver in the train (did not intend to kill or cause harm, but knew that pushing the stone was an unlawful act)

Question 17

What were the outcomes of Khan and Khan, and Dias?

Answer 17

The Court of Appeal quashed their convictions but allowed the possibility that a duty to act could arise in such circumstances.
- It was held that a duty of care might exist once a dangerous situation has been created or assumed by the defendant (e.g., where they supplied drugs and were aware of the risks).
- However, as there was no clear duty established in this case, the convictions were overturned.
> Essentially, court thought there could be a duty of care to summon medical assistance in certain terms (presented as an obiter; could open up the floodgates on the definition of duty)

Question 18

What is Gross Negligence Manslaughter?

Answer 18

Manslaughter due to grossly negligent conduct where a duty of care is breached, causing death.

Question 19

What is liability?

Answer 19

Legal responsibility for one’s actions or omissions.

Question 20

What case does the law on gross negligence manslaughter come from?

Answer 20

R v Adomako (1994)

Question 21

What is the legal outcome in the case of R v Adomako (1994)?

Answer 21

The test requires establishing that the defendant:
Owed a duty of care to the deceased
Breached that duty of care
The breach caused the death
The breach was so grossly negligent as to be criminal

Question 22

What case established the difference between negligence and gross negligence?

Answer 22

Bateman (1925)

Question 23

What happened in Bateman (1925)

Answer 23

Established that D can be negligent, but it has to be gross negligence.
> Conviction was quashed because he carried out the normal procedure any competent doctor would have; supported in Adomako (1994) and decided that the jury has to consider the seriousness of the breach

Question 24

What issues arise over the Bateman ruling?

Answer 24

Issues arise over appropriate standards for gross negligence (inconsistencies; little guidance as well).

Question 25

What is duty of care?

Answer 25

A legal obligation to take reasonable care to avoid causing harm to others.

Question 26

What case establishes duty of care for gross negligence manslaughter?

Answer 26

Donoghue v Stevenson (1932)

Question 27

What was the legal outcome of Donoghue and Stevenson (1932)?

Answer 27

‘you must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour’

Question 28

What are the three cases used for duty of care for gross negligence manslaughter?

Answer 28

Donoghue and Stevenson (1932) Stone and Dobinson Wacker (2002)

Question 29

What was the legal outcome of Stone and Dobinson?

Answer 29

D's had duty to his aunt as they had voluntarily taken her into their care

Question 30

What was the legal outcome of Wacker (2002)?

Answer 30

D knew the safety of the immigrants depended on his own actions in relation to the vent and clearly assumed the duty of care. > V was party to an illegal act; in civil law, this means that V could not have made a claim; court said this was irrelevant and public policy demanded that this situation was criminal > judge referred to the “ordinary principles of the law of negligence”

Question 31

What is omission?

Answer 31

Failure to act when there is a duty to do so, leading to harm

Question 32

What cases can be used for omission for gross negligence manslaugther?

Answer 32

Singh (1999) Litchfield (1998)

Question 33

What was the legal outcome in Singh (1999)?

Answer 33

Courts recognised a duty to manage and maintain property where a faulty gas fire caused the death of tenants.

Question 34

What was the legal outcome in Litchfield (1999)?

Answer 34

Held that the master of a sailing ship owed a duty of care when he knew that the engine may fail due to contamination of fuel. > Does not need to be a contractual duty (i.e. Stone and Dobinson)

Question 35

In what case can an overlap of unlawful act and gross negligence manslaughter be seen?

Answer 35

Willoughby

Question 36

What was the legal outcome in Willoughby?

Answer 36

Willoughby created the dangerous situation and invited the deceased to participate in it. - The risk of death was foreseeable, and Willoughby failed to take reasonable care for his friend’s safety. Court also said the judge should have directed the jury on unlawful act manslaughter rather than gross negligence manslaughter; either could be appropriate, depending on the circumstances. > No duty found in Khan but debatable in Dias

Question 37

For a question on whether a duty is owed, what should be written (in an exam)?

Answer 37

For questions on whether a duty is owed, state the rules for gross negligence manslaughter, explain the duty problem and go on to unlawful act manslaughter as an alternative to gross negligence manslaughter (discuss both); mention Khan and Willoughby

Question 38

What is subjective reckless manslaughter?

Answer 38

Manslaughter caused by recklessness, where the defendant consciously disregards a risk of death or injury.

Question 39

In what case was there a charge for recklessness manslaughter?

Answer 39

Lidar (2000)

Question 40

What was the legal outcome of Lidar (2000)?

Answer 40

V was dragged under the wheel of a car when he had half his arm in the car and the D decided to drive; considered reckless manslaughter but could have been gross negligence manslaughter

Question 41

What are the issues with recklessness manslaughter?

Answer 41

Brought back the idea of reckless manslaughter in England (After Adomako and Khan, it seemed abolished; brought back in Lidar) > Questions arise over the necessity of having two categories - Can use the idea of a recommendation to get rid of the third type of manslaughter (reckless) for ‘fault’ essays