Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM


Top Flashcards (Certified)
All Flashcards

Criminal Law > Murder + Involuntary Manslaughter (UAM + GNM) + Reckless Manslaughter > Flashcards

Murder + Involuntary Manslaughter (UAM + GNM) + Reckless Manslaughter Flashcards

(70 cards)

Start Studying
1
Q

AR of murder

A

(i) unlawful (ii) killing of another (iii) person in (iv) the King’s peace

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

what type of crime/offence is murder (2)

A

-result crime; D’s act/omission must take place in specific circs (ie King’s peace ) and results in V’s death
-constructive liability offence (D’s liability constructed upon lesser MR (GBH))

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

how is AR conduct element satisfied

A

by any conduct that causes V’s death, type of conduct is irrelevant

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

name 3 cases and their legal principles regarding (iii) a person

A

R v Poulton; foetuses cant be murdered, must be born alive
R v Senior; murder if born alive but dies of prior injuries
AG’s Ref (No.3 1994); no transferred malice of intent to harm mother of foetus

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

what happened/ is the legal principle of R v Poulton

A

foetuses cannot be murdered, must be born alive

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

what happened/ is the legal principle of R v Senior

A

murder if born alive but dies of prior injuries

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

what happened/ is the legal principle of murder if born alive but dies of prior injuries
AG’s Ref (No.3 1994)

A

no transferred malice of intent to harm mother of foetus

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

give 3 cases/ legal principles regarding the definition of death

A

Re: A (a minor); medical definition of death
R v Malcherek & Steel; confirms Re: A (a minor) + brain death = death
R v Bland; ppl in permanent vegetative states and comas = alive

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

what happened/ is the legal principle in Re: A (a minor)

A

death = medical definition of death

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

what happened/ is the legal principle of R v Malcherek & Steel

A

-confirms Re: A (a minor) -brain death = death

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

what happened/ is the legal principle of R v Bland

A

ppl in permanent vegetative states and comas = alive

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

when should (i) unlawful be considered

A

(i) it is not unlawful if there is a defence, consider with defences

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

name 2 cases + their legal principles regarding (ii) killing of another

A
  • R v Adams; D must accelerate V’s death by a more than negligible amount
    -done by an act or omission ( difficulty establishing intent to kill/ cause GBH (R v Gibbons and Procter)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

what happened/ is the legal principle in R v Adams

A

D must accelerate V’s death by a more than negligible amount

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

what happened/ is the legal principle in R v Gibbons and Procter

A

murder by omission is rare as it is difficult to establish intent to kill/ cause GBH

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

when should (ii) killing of another be considered

A

with causation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

what is MR for murder

A

intention to kill (express malice) or cause GBH (implied malice)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

give 2 cases + their legal principles regarding intention to kill/cause GBH

A

Vickers; intent to cause GBH is sufficient
Cunningham; confirmed Vickers + D can be reckless as to the possibility of causing foreseeable harm/GBH

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

what happened/ is the legal principle in Vickers

A

-D struck old woman to avoid being recognised while burgling her, she died
-intent to cause GBH is sufficient

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

what happened/ is the legal principle in Cunningham

A

-appellant gassed MIL by removing gas meter connected to her house for money
-confirmed Vickers
-D can be reckless as to the possibility of causing foreseeable harm/GBH

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

give 2 cases and the legal principles for direct intention

A

Moloney; no need to direct jury what intention means
-Woollin;jury may find intention if they are sure that (i)death/GBH was a virtual certainty (from D’s actions) and (ii) D appreciated that –> indirect intent

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

what happened/ is the legal principle of Moloney

A

no need to direct jury on what intention is

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

what is meant by GBH ( use case law)

A

DPP v Smith; GBH = really serious harm

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

what happened/ is the legal principle of DPP v Smith

A

GBH= really serious harm

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
what happened / is the legal principle in Woollin
-jury may find (indirect) intention if they are sure that (i)death/GBH was a virtual certainty (from D's actions) and (ii) D appreciated that was the case
26
what are the types of involuntary manslaughter
Constructive/ UAM Gross Negligence Manslaughter
27
what type of crime is constructive/ UAM
-result crime -manslaughter = constructed from liability for a base crime
28
AR for Constructive/ UAM
-D performed act which is (i) unlawful (ii) dangerous and (iii) which caused V's death -confirmed in A-G's Ref (No 2 0f 1994)
29
explain (i) unlawful for constructive/ UAM
-must be an initial criminal act with D committing AR + MR
30
give 5 cases + their legal principles regarding (i) unlawful for constructive/ UAM
-Goodfellow; no requirement that UA be directed at V or even a person -Andrews v DPP; UA must be intrinsically criminal -^^ confirmed by R v Franklin and R v Lamb -R v Lowe; UAM cannot arise from omission
31
what happened / is the legal principle in Goodfellow
- no requirement that UA be directed at V or even a person
32
what happened / is the legal principle in Andrews v DPP
-UA must be intrinsically criminal
33
what happened / is the legal principle in R v Lowe
-UAM cannot arise from omission
34
what happened / is the legal principle in R v Franklin and R v Lamb
R v Franklin; threw beer crate off pier R v Lamb; children + gun confirms Andrews v DPP
35
36
explain the legal principles / cases regarding (ii) dangerous in UAM (4)
- R v Carey or R v M (and another); risk of some physical harm = sufficient -obj test, no need to show D was aware act risked physical harm -obj test asks whether person in D's circs would know act = dangerous -^^ conf in R v Church and R v JF
37
what happened / is the legal principle in R v Carey / R v M (and another)
-risk of some physical harm = sufficient
38
what happened / is the legal principle in R v Church / R v JF
-obj test for dangerousness asks whether person in D's circs would know the act was dangerous
39
give 2 cases + legal principles on the obj appreciating dangerousness for UAM
R v Dawson; D couldnt appreciate danger as he had an imitation gun and didnt know of V's weak heart condition R v Watson; D could appreciate danger due to V's old age making him vulnerable ( to heart attacks)
40
what happened / is the legal principle in R v Dawson
-D could not appreciate danger as he had imitation gun and no knowledge of V's weak heart condition
41
what happened / is the legal principle in R v Watson
-D could appreciate danger due to V's old age making him vulnerable to heart attacks
42
what are the cases and legal principles regarding (iii) UA must have caused V's death in UAM
-normal causation rules (not omission tho) -Kennedy No2; D not liable for UAM if V's self injection of drugs = free, voluntary and informed
43
what happened / is the legal principle in Kennedy No2
-supplying drugs is not dangerous -D is not liable for UAM if V's self-injection = free, voluntary and informed -F,V + I means D's original contribution is no longer substantial/ operating
44
what type of crime is gross negligence manslaughter
-result crime -where comitted via an act, D must hace owed V a duty of care -foresight not needed
45
give 3 cases + legal principles regarding (i) owing a duty of care (act not omission) in GNM
-R v Wacker;DoCare = same as civil law definition -R v Adomako; doctor-patient -R v Litchfield; captain- crew / employer-employee
46
what happened / is the legal principle in R v Adomako
-doctors owe DoC to patients -D didnt notice oxygen tube disconnected V died -professional standard
47
what happened / is the legal principle in R v Wacker
-CA held DoCare has same meaning as it does in civil law
48
what happened / is the legal principle in R v Litchfield
-employers owe DoCare to employees
49
give 6 examples of duties to act (omissions)
-statutory duty -contractual duty -pre-existing relationship -impliedly / expressly assumed relationship -dangerous situation
50
give 4 cases + legal principles regarding duty to act from creation of a dangerous situation for GNM
-Miller; creation of dangerous situation, left room on fire recklessly -R v Bowler; mummified suffocation, duty to act -R v Evans; Miller extended to where D has duty to act where they merely contribute to creating dangerous situation (overdose) -Kennedy No2; no duty to act if merely supplying drugs
51
what happened / is the legal principle in Miller
-creation of a dangerous situation creates a duty to act -D recklessly left room that was on fire from his cigarette
52
what happened / is the legal principle in R v Bowler
-mummified sex suffocation -duty to act
53
what happened / is the legal principle in R v Evans
-Miller extended so D has duty to act when merely contributing to dangerous situation -drug overdose case
54
what happened / is the legal principle in Kennedy No2 regarding GNM
-no duty to act if merely supplying drugs
55
how is GNM established
(i) show D owed V a duty of care / duty to act (ii)show D negligently breached duty to V in some way (iii) show D's breach of duty caused V's death (iv) show gross negligence
56
give 6 cases/legal principles regarding (ii) D negligently breached duty owed to V
-Obj test where jury decides if, from D's act/omissions, would RP have forseen a serious and obvious risk of death -R v S; pointing gun = obvious RoDeath -Adomako; professionals standard -R v Rose; diluted obj test to whether RP w/ D's knowledge would foresee... -R v Winterton; specialist knowledge not needed for really obv risks -R v Kuddas; apply to class of person not specific V
57
what happened / is the legal principle in R v S
-obvious risk of death -D pointed gun at V, didnt check chamber
58
what happened / is the legal principle in Adomako for (ii) D breached duty owed to V
-professionals/ specialist skills compared to RP of profession/ same skills
59
what happened / is the legal principle in R v Rose
-court diluted obj test to whether RP w/ D's knowledge at the time would have foreseen serious/obv risk of death
60
what happened / is the legal principle in R v Winterton
-distinguished from Rose that specialist knowledge not needed for serious / obvious risk of death
61
what happened / is the legal principle in R v Kuddas
-when applying serious/obv risk of deat apply to class of person, ie ppl w/ peanut allergies, not specific V
62
how is (iii) D's breach of duty caused V's death considered
-normal causation rules for acts / omissions
63
give 3 legal principles/ cases for (iv) gross negligence
-R v Adomako; jury has wide discretion, takes all facts into account, more subj -R v Rowley; Kennedy LJ said jury must be sure D's conduct so bad i all the circs it amounted to CRIMINAL act/omission -conf in Bateman by L. Hewartt
64
what happened / is the legal principle in R v Adomako for (iv) gross negligence
-wide discretion for jury -take all facts into account -more subj
65
what happened / is the legal principle in R v Rowley
-Kennedy LJ said jury must be sure D's conduct so bad in all circs it amounted to CRIM act/omission -GROSS negligence as crim law goes further than civil law
66
what happened / is the legal principle in Bateman
-conf R v Rowley -L. Hewartt " conduct which does not merely call for compensation but for criminal punishment
67
what type of crime is reckless manslaughter
result crime not enough for murder which requires direct (Vickers)/indirect(Woollin) intent to kill/GBH
68
test/case for recklessness
R v G&R; (i)was D aware of risk of death/ GBH (ii)would RP in circs have taken that risk
69
case example for reckless manslaughter
-R v Lidar; -V hanging from D's window fighting w/ passenger - D accelerated and ran V over
70
when is reckless manslaughter needed
-only where (i)D kills via omission (no UAM) + -(ii)where D's omission does not pose an objectively foreseeable risk of death (no GNM) -death/GBH = highly likely but not virtual certainty

Criminal Law (17 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2025 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions