Section C

Question 1

what is an unlawful killing

Answer 1

where the defendant does not have the intention to kill or cause GBH; the lack of intention is the main difference

Question 2

what is Voluntary manslaughter

Answer 2

intent to kill - LC or DR reduces it

Question 3

what is involuntary manslaughter

Answer 3

no intent to kill but actions cause it

Question 4

Unlawful act manslaughter

Answer 4

Liability for the death is built up or constructed from the facts that D has performed a dangerous act; this makes the D liable even though he did not realise his act would cause death or injury.
law a01 comes from franklin and church

Question 5

what did franklin case establish?

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

Question 6

what did church case establish?

Answer 6

R v Church (1966) established the objective nature of the dangerous act
“the unlawful act must be such as all reasonable people would inevitably recognise must subject the other person to at least’ (ex causing death in franklin)

Question 7

what happens if there is an intervening act breaking the chain of causation?

Answer 7

D cannot be liable for manslaughter; this has caused issues in many cases…

Question 8

what must the unlawful act cause ?

Answer 8

Unlawful acts must cause death; rules on causation are the same - if there is an intervening act

Question 9

what happened in Cato?

Answer 9

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

Question 10

what happened in Dalby, and Kennedy?

Answer 10

> 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 11

what was established in Rogers (2003)

Answer 11

> If D holds the victim or places and holds a belt around the victim’s arm they cannot be guilty of manslaughter unless they adminster drug

Question 12

Harm (Church)

Answer 12

church established the harm principle

Question 13

what was established in Dawson (1985)

Answer 13

Jury directed to consider the possibility of physical harm as opposed to emotional disturbance (scaring to death cannot be murder)

Question 14

R v Larkin (1943)

Answer 14

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 15

R v Goodfellow (1986)

Answer 15

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 16

Mens rea in unlawful acts?

Answer 16

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

confirmed in Newbury and jones

Question 17

what happened in Newbury and Jones (1976)

Answer 17

d pushed a paving stone off a bridge that struck a driver in the train.
this case confirmed that D did not have to realise their act was unlawful or dangeroys or have mens rea for murder

Question 18

Khan and Khan case established? (drugs dealers didnt take care of OD etc)

Answer 18

Court of Appeal quashed the convictions for unlawful act manslaughter but 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 19

how is a defendant convicted of Gross negligence manslaughter?

Answer 19

where D has been so grossly negligent that criminal liability is appropriate

Question 20

how is GNM defined in categories to convict?

Answer 20

• Does D have a duty towards the victim and are they in breach of the duty
  did the breach cause death
  should the conduct be characterised as criminal

Question 21

where does the AO1 of GNM come from?

Answer 21

Adomako

Question 22

what was the case of adomako?

Answer 22

Adomako, a doctor, failed to notice that an endotracheal tube had become disconnected during eye surgery; he had been distracted by a problem but failed to perform basic checks that would have revealed the disconnection.

HOL upheld conviction and established a test

Question 23

The test from adomako requires establishing that the defendant:?

Answer 23

Owed a duty of care to the deceased that was breached causing death.
the breach has to be so grossly negligent as to be criminal

Question 24

Bateman (1925) what was established/outcome

Answer 24

established d can be negligent but has to be grossly negiligent

Question 25

what was the bateman case

Answer 25

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

Question 26

where does Duty of care come from?

Answer 26

donoghue and stevenson, you must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour’ (AO1)

Question 27

what case was duty of care breached ?

Answer 27

established 'duty of care in donoghue and stevenson, but duty being breached was also in stone and dobinson

Question 28

Stone and Dobinson

Answer 28

duty to his aunt as theyd voluntarily taken her into their care

Question 29

what was the case of Wacker (2002)

Answer 29

> 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 in an illegal act, 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 30

what is an omission?

Answer 30

failure to act

Question 31

what was the case of Singh (1999)

Answer 31

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

Question 32

Litchfield (1998)

Answer 32

> Held that the master of a sailing ship owed a duty of care (does not have to be a contractual duty like dobinson case) when he knew that the engine may fail due to contamination of fuel.

Question 33

what is the Willoughby case?

Answer 33

Court said a duty could be owed even though they were engaged in criminal activity Court also said the judge should have directed the jury on unlawful act manslaughter rather than gross negligence manslaughter; either could be appropriate

Question 34

what was established in khan case ?

Answer 34

No duty found in Khan but debatable in Dias

Question 35

For questions on whether a duty is owed what should you state?

Answer 35

state the rules for gross negligence manslaughter

Question 36

what did the case of Lidar (2000) establish/bring back?

Answer 36

- Brought back the idea of reckless manslaughter in England (After Adomako and Khan it seemed to be abolished but brought back in lidar)

Question 37

what was the case of lidar?

Answer 37

> 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 38

whats wrong with having both GNM and subjective recklessness manslaughter?

Answer 38

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

Question 39

Zeebrugge disaster (1987)

Answer 39

- A ferry capsized shortly after leaving a port; P&O Ferries were charged with corporate manslaughter and seven employees were charged with maslaughter. howerver, the case collapsed after the judges directed the jury to acquit the Defenndants. no one was prosecuted as the acts of negligence couldn't be attributed ti any individual as people had covered their tracks.

Question 40

Wacker (2002) (gross negligence manslaughter)

Answer 40

Wacker was a Dutch lorry driver involved in smuggling the migrants. He closed the air vent to the container to prevent detection. The legal significance of the case centered on whether Wacker could use the defense that the victims' own actions (agreeing to be transported in dangerous conditions) contributed to their deaths.The court rejected this defense ruling that Wacker owed a duty of care to his passengers regardless of their illegal entry attempt

Question 41

Willoughby (gross negligence manslaughter)

Answer 41

D faced financial difficulties due to his inability to sell a property. He enlisted the assistance of a man to set fire to the building to claim insurance. During this an explosion occurred

Question 42

Khan and Khan (gross negligence manslaughter)

Answer 42

Defendants supplied heroin to a user who subsequently died after injecting the drug. The Court of Appeal quashed the manslaughter convictions,concluding that supplying Class A drugs to someone who then dies from their use does not constitute manslaughter. The court found that the victim's voluntary act of injection did not break the chain of causation between the supply and the death.

Question 43

Dias (gross negligence manslaughter)

Answer 43

Dias supplied heroin to a man who subsequently died after injecting the drug. Unlike some similar cases the prosecution in this matter relied on gross negligence manslaughter rather than unlawful act manslaughter. The Court of Appeal quashed the conviction

Question 44

Misra and Another (2004) (gross negligence manslaughter)

Answer 44

The patient was admitted to hospital for a routine knee operation but developed toxic shock syndrome after the procedure. Despite clear signs of serious infection including an elevated temperature and abnormal blood test results

Question 45

Lidar (gross negligence manslaughter/reckless)

Answer 45

D was involved in an altercation with V. V approached Lidar’s car and engaged in a confrontation with a passenger. As Lidar drove away V was partially in the vehicle. Lidar accelerated

Question 46

Stone & Dobinson (gross negligence manslaughter)

Answer 46

Stone’s elderly sister came to live with the defendants. She eventually became bedridden and incapable of caring for herself. She died of malnutrition. Dobinson had on at least one occasion

Question 47

Donoghue and Stevenson (1932) (gross negligence manslaughter)

Answer 47

Donoghue consumed a ginger beer from an opaque bottle purchased for her by a friend at a café owned by Stevenson. After drinking most of the contents she discovered the decomposed remains of a snail in the bottle. She subsequently became ill and sued the manufacturer