unlawful act manslaughter Flashcards
r v goodfellow
FACTS
the defendant want to be be moved from a council house that he is living in so set fire to it to make it look like it had been petrol bombed. In doing so he unintentionally killed his fam
r v goodfellow
LEGAL PRINCIPLE
courts said it is unlawful act manslaughter - unlawful act being arson and that it can be against property
r v frankiln
FACTS
the defendant is arguing with a stall owner they picked up an item from the stall and without looking threw it into the ocean which hit and killed someone who was swimming in it
r v frankiln
LEGAL PRINCIPLE
d not liable for unlawful act manslaughter as they hadn’t committed an identifiable crime that resulted in death - however can be gross negligence manslaughter
r v lowe
FACTS
ds son died due to neglect
r v church
LEGAL PRINCIPLE
all sober and reasonable people would inevitably recognise must so,e subject the other to at least the risk of some harm, albeit not serious harm
DPP v newbury and jones
FACTS
the defendants both teenage boys threw a piece of paving stone from a railway bridge onto a train that was passing beneath them, it hit and killed the guard who was sat in the drivers compartment
DPP v newbury and jones
LEGAL PRINCIPLE
no requirment that the defendant foresees that some harm will result from his action d can be convicted provided that the unlawful act was dangerous and d had the necessary men’s rea for the act
r v larkin
FACTS
the defendant waved his razor trying to scare a woman he claimed she was drunk and blundered it against it and killed her as it cut her throat
r v larkin
LEGAL PRINCIPLE
this was a dangerous act in that it was one which a sober and reasonable person would regard as dangerous, the dangerous act need not be directed at the victim as long as the above applys
r v JM and SM
FACTS
JM lit a cigarette in a night club and was asked to leave JM and his brother SM left but returned later and a fight broke out between the doorman and the brothers. during the fight the doorman collapsed and died due to a weakness in his artery wall this was unlikely to be spontaneous so the fight was the substantial cause
r v JM and SM
LGAL PRINCIPLE
The court of appeal held that a sober and reasonable man only had to force some harm not the specific type of harm
r v dawson
FACTS
3 defendants tried to roba petrol station. They wore masks and were armed with a pickaxe handle and replica guns the petrol attendant, 60, suffered with a heart condition. After the attendant sounded the alarm the defendants fled empty handed. The attendant then suffered a fatal heart attack.
r v dawson
LEGAL PRINCIPLE
Conviction quashed, jury aware of the attendants heart condition whereas a reasonable man present at the time of the attack wouldn’t be aware of it
r v watson
FACTS
the appellant smashed a window and broke into the house of an 87 year old man, Harold moyler. Moyler went to investigate and the appellant shouted abuse at him and ran off. the police arrived and moyler suffered a heart attack and died 90 minutes after the initial break in
