Murder and Manslaughter Cases Flashcards
(8 cards)
- R v Byrne QB 396
o Context: Defines “abnormality of mental functioning” for the partial defence of Diminished Responsibility.
o Principle/Details: Held that “abnormal” means “so different from that of an ordinary person that the reasonable [person] would term it abnormal”. This case established the subjective nature of this element of the defence.
R v Golds UKSC 61
o Context: Interprets the requirement of “substantial” impairment for the partial defence of Diminished Responsibility. Also illustrates the “significant contributory factor” element.
o Principle/Details: The Supreme Court defined “substantial” impairment as having the same meaning as the ordinary English word, being more than trivial or minimal. The case involved a defendant with mental disorders who stabbed his partner after stopping medication. He was found guilty of murder because evidence showed his primary motive was revenge, indicating the abnormality was not a significant contributory factor.
R v Dowds EWCA Crim 281
o Context: Clarifies the role of intoxication in the partial defence of Diminished Responsibility.
o Principle/Details: Held that intoxication on its own will not amount to an abnormality of mental functioning. The case involved a defendant who, along with the victim, was a heavy binge drinker, stabbing her while both were drunk. He was found guilty of murder as intoxication did not qualify as the necessary abnormality.
R v Dawes and others EWCA Crim 322
o Context: Illustrates limitations on the “fear of serious harm” and “extremely grave circumstances” qualifying triggers for the partial defence of Loss of Self Control.
o Principle/Details: The defence is not available if the defendant incited the violence. The case also involved a burglar who insulted and confronted a homeowner; held that the burglar did not have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged.
R v Adomako 1 AC 171
o Context: The leading case defining Gross Negligence Manslaughter (GNM).
o Principle/Details: Occurs where the defendant’s act, though not otherwise criminally unlawful, is performed with gross negligence causing death. It typically arises from a breach of a duty of care. The case involved an anaesthetist who failed to notice a disconnected oxygen supply during surgery, leading to the patient’s death.
- R v Evans EWCA Crim 650
o Context: Illustrates that a duty of care for Gross Negligence Manslaughter can arise from an omission and from creating a dangerous situation.
o Principle/Details: The defendant supplied heroin to the victim. When the victim began overdosing, the defendant failed to seek medical help. Held that by creating a dangerous situation (supplying the drug), the defendant was under a duty to prevent harm, and failure to do so could lead to GNM liability if the other elements were met.
- R v Kennedy (No. 2) UKHL 38
o Context: A key case on causation, particularly concerning drug supply and the victim’s voluntary actions breaking the chain. Relevant to both Constructive Manslaughter and general causation principles.
o Principle/Details: Held that where the defendant supplies a drug and the victim voluntarily self-administers it, the victim’s act breaks the chain of causation between the supply and the death. Therefore, the supplier is not liable for homicide
- R v Blaue 1 WLR 1411
o Context: A classic illustration of the “Egg Shell Skull Principle” in causation.
o Principle/Details: Held that the defendant must take their victim as they find them, including their particular susceptibilities. In this case, a victim stabbed by the defendant refused a life-saving blood transfusion due to religious beliefs and died. The refusal, though unreasonable, did not break the chain of causation, and the defendant was liable for the death.
