Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

*ANEWL-Involuntry Manslaighter > Unlawful Act Manslaughter > Flashcards

Unlawful Act Manslaughter Flashcards

1
Q

Why has there been criticisms that the same offence of involuntary manslaughter covers such a wide range of behaviour?

A

as at the top end of the range, the behaviour of d which caused the Death can be highly blameworthy as there was a high risk of causing death or serious injury

AT the bottom end of the range, D’s behaviour may verge on carelessness and only just enough to be considered blameworthy

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

What is the maximum sentence for involuntary manslaughter?

A

life imprisonment

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

Although the range for the offence of involuntary manslaughter is wide, what balances this?

A

the fact that judges have discretion to impose any sentence which they deem suitable for the particular circumstances of the offence.

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

What are the 3 ways of committing involuntary manslaughter?

A
  • unlawful act manslaughter
  • gross negligence manslaughter
  • reckless manslaughter
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

What is unlawful act manslaughter also known as?

A

constructive manslaughter

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

Why is unlawful act manslaughter also known as constructive manslaughter?

A

because the liability for the death is built up or constructed from the facts that D done a dangerous act which caused the death

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

What are the 4 elements to unlawful act manslaughter?

A
  • D must do an unlawful act
  • Act must be dangerous on an objective test
  • Act must cause death
  • D must have required mens rea for the unlawful act
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

The unlawful act must be a criminal offence. What is not enough?

A

a civil wrong (tort)

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

D threw a large box into the sea which hit and killed a swimmer. It was held that a civil wrong was not enough to create liability for unlawful act manslaughter.
What case is this?

A

Franklin

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

What happened in the case of Franklin?

A

D threw a large box into the sea which hit and killed a swimmer. It was held that a civil wrong was not enough to create liability for unlawful act manslaughter.

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

Which 2 cases illustrate that there must be a criminal unlawful act?

A

Lamb

Franklin

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

What happened in the case of lamb?

A

D and his friend, V played with a loaded revolver which they both did not understand. D pointed the gun and shot at V, V died. It was held that D had not done an unlawful act as pointing the gun was not an assault as V had not feared violence

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

An omission cannot create liability for unlawful act manslaughter. Which case showed this?

A

Lowe

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

What happened in the case of Lowe?

A

D was convicted of wilfully neglecting his baby son. COA quashed conviction for manslaughter as wilful neglect involved a failure to act which does not support a conviction for unlawful act manslaughter

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

In most cases, what will be the unlawful act, though, any criminal offence can form the unlawful act provided that it involves an act which is dangerous in the sense that it is likely to cause injury?

A

assault

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

what are 3 examples of an offence which has led to a finding of unlawful act manslaughter?

A
  • arson (Goodfellow)
  • Criminal Damage (Newbury and Jones)
  • burglary (Watson)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Arson is an example of an unlawful act which would suffice for unlawful act manslaughter. What case shows this?

A

Good fellow

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

. What happened in the case of Goodfellow?

A

D wished to move council house accommodation and so burned his house down. Wife and son’s girlfriend died in the fire. Conviction upheld.There was no requirement that the unlawful act was directed at the victims nor that it was directed at a person.

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

D wished to move council house accommodation and so burned his house down. Wife and son’s girlfriend died in the fire. Conviction upheld.There was no requirement that the unlawful act was directed at the victims nor that it was directed at a person.
What case is this?

A

Good fellow

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

Criminal damage is an example of an unlawful act which would suffice for unlawful act manslaughter, what case shows this?

A

Newbury and Jones

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

What happened in the case of Newbury and Jones?

A

Two 15 year old boys threw a paving slab off a bridge as a train approached and killed a train guard. It was held that There is no requirement that the defendant foresees that some harm will result from his action. Conviction upheld.

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

Burglary is an example of an unlawful act which would suffice for unlawful act manslaughter, what case shows this?

A

Watson

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

What happened in the case of Watson?

A

D smashed a window and broke into the house of an 87 year old man. Discovered by V, D shouted abuse at him and ran off. V suffered a heart attack and died 90 minutes after the initial break in. His conviction was quashed as it could not be established that the break in was the cause of the heart attack.

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

In the case Church, what was held about a dangerous act?

A

that a dangerous act need only be a risk causing ‘some harm’ not necessarily, serious harm.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

In the case Church, what was held about a dangerous act?

A

that a dangerous act need only be a risk causing ‘some harm’ not necessarily, serious harm by a sober and reasonable person. It does not matter that they did not realise the risk.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

Which case illustrates the fact that there is a need for both an unlawful act and for there to be an objective viewpoint, a risk of serious harm?

A

Larkin

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

What happened in the case of Larkin?

A

D threatened someone with a razor to frighten them, V intervened and was killed in the process. D’s conviction for manslaughter was upheld as the act of threatening the other man was an unlawful act.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

D threatened someone with a razor to frighten them, V intervened and was killed in the process. D’s conviction for manslaughter was upheld as the act of threatening the other man was an unlawful act.
What case is this?

A

Larkin

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

Which 2 cases show that the unlawful act need not be aimed at the victim?

A

Larkin and Mitchell

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

What happened in the case of Mitchell?

A

D punched an old man who fell on an elderly woman who later died of her injuries. D was convicted of unlawful act manslaughter through an indirect act.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

What is it not necessary for the sober and reasonable period to foresee?

A

it is not necessary for the sober and reasonable person to foresee the particular type of harm that the victim suffers. It is enough that they would foresee only some harm.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
32
Q

Which case stated that it was not not necessary for the sober and reasonable person to foresee the particular type of harm that the victim suffers. It is enough that they would foresee only some harm?

A

JM and SM

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
33
Q

What happened in the case of JM and SM?

A

Ds started a fight with doormen. During the fight V, a doorman dropped dead due to an unknown medical issue, but it was proved that the fight caused the death. COA held that the sober and reasonable person need only have foreseen some harm, which inciting the fight did. Guilty.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
34
Q

Ds started a fight with doormen. During the fight V, a doorman dropped dead due to an unknown medical issue, but it was proved that the fight caused the death. COA held that the sober and reasonable person need only have foreseen some harm, which inciting the fight did. Guilty.
What case is this?

A

JM and SM

35
Q

The act need not even be aimed at a person, it can be aimed at property, provided that it is what?

A

that it is such that the sober and reasonable people would inevitably recognise the risk of some harm when committing an act against property

36
Q

Which case illustrates that an act against property can still suffice for a conviction under unlawful act manslaughter?

A

Good fellow

37
Q

What happened in the case of Goodfellow?

A

D set fire to council house to get rehoused. Wife and sons girlfriend died in fire. Conviction of unlawful act manslaughter upheld.

38
Q

Step by step looking at the facts of Goodfellow you can see the emts of unlawful act manslaughter. What are they?

A
  • act was committed intentionally
  • Goodfellow intended to set flat on fire
  • It was unlawful
  • Arson is an offence under the Criminal Damage Act
  • Reasonable people would recognise that it might cause some harm to another person
  • obvious risk that someone in the flat might be hurt
  • Act caused death
  • wife and sons girlfriend died
39
Q

The ‘risk of harm’ needed to be foreseen by D refers to physical harm. What is not sufficient?

A

something which causes fear and apprehension (giving someone a shock which results in a heart attack)

40
Q

What cases demonstrates that the risk of harm does not include something which causes fear and apprehension even in the case of a heart attack?

A

Dawson

41
Q

What happened in the case of Dawson?

A

D tried to rob a petrol station wearing a mask. The petrol manager dropped dead from a heart attack. It was held that causing fear through attempted robbery was not a dangerous act.

42
Q

D tried to rob a petrol station wearing a mask. The petrol manager dropped dead from a heart attack. It was held that causing fear through attempted robbery was not a dangerous act.
What case is this?

A

Dawson

43
Q

Where a person would be aware of the victims frailty and the risk of physical harm to him, the defendant will be liable. Which case stated this?

A

Watson

44
Q

What happened in the case of Watson?

A

Ds threw a brick through a window intending to steal property. D was discovered by V who then died 90 minutes later from a heart attack. COA quashed the convictions His conviction was quashed as it could not be established as it was the cause of the heart attack. However, the COA held that a sober and reasonable person would regard the act of D as dangerous as they would have known of the age and frail condition of the victim.

45
Q

Under the Church deffiniton with a risk of some harm, which offence is an unlawful act which is not normally dangerous?

A

Burglary

46
Q

While burglary is an unlawful act which is not normally dangerous under the Church deffiniton with a risk of some harm. However when may it be dangerous?

A

when a burglary is carried out in such a way that the circumstances of the commission of the offence make it dangerous. (such as the situation in Bristow, Dunn and Delay)

47
Q

While burglary is an unlawful act which is not normally dangerous under the Church deffiniton with a risk of some harm. It may be considered dangerous when a burglary is carried out in such a way that the circumstances of the commission of the offence make it dangerous as illustrated in which case?

A

Bristow, Dunn and Delay

48
Q

What happened in the case of Bristow, Dunn and Delay?

A

Ds were part of a gang who had burgled V. V was found dead after being hit twice by Ds vehicles. COA upheld convictions of Vs manslaughter as the normal person would have recognised the result of some harm

49
Q

Another aspect of unlawful act manslaughter is the cause of death. When will D not be liable?

A

if there is an intervening act which breaks the chain of causation

50
Q

in cases of drug dealers, when will there be no intervening act which would break D’s liability?

A

if D at any point injected V

51
Q

Which case demonstrates that if D injects V with drugs then the chain of causation would not be broken?

A

Cato

52
Q

What happened in the case of Cato?

A

D and V both prepared drugs and injected each other. V died. D had committed the unlawful act and so D was convicted of unlawful act manslaughter

53
Q

D and V both prepared drugs and injected each other. V died. D had committed the unlawful act and so D was convicted of unlawful act manslaughter
What case is this?

A

Cato

54
Q

What are the two points which are addressed in cases of drug dealers where the defendant has prepared the injection?

A
  • whether D had done the unlawful act

- whether D caused V’s death or whether the self injection is an intervening act

55
Q

What was the first case on the issue of where the defendant has prepared the injection?

A

Dalby

56
Q

What happened in the case of Dalby?

A

D supplied a drug to V and died. D’s conviction for manslaughter was quashed as although the supplying of a drug is an unlawful act it was not this act which directly caused the death.

57
Q

D supplied a drug to V and died. D’s conviction for manslaughter was quashed as although the supplying of a drug is an unlawful act it was not this act which directly caused the death.
What case is this?

A

Dalby

58
Q

Which case finally settled the issue of drug dealers in the law of unlawful act manslaughter?

A

Kennedy

59
Q

What did the HOL rule in Kennedy?

A

that there was no unlace act by the defendant under s.23 Offences Against Person Act as D did not administer the substance by filling it and handing it to V. The act of self injection was a voluntary intervening act by V.

60
Q

What happened in the case of Kennedy?

A

D prepared an injection of heroin and handed it to V who self injected and died. COA upheld conviction but HOL quashed conviction as D had not done an unlawful act as the intervening act broke any chain of causation.

61
Q

D prepared an injection of heroin and handed it to V who self injected and died. COA upheld conviction but HOL quashed conviction as D had not done an unlawful act as the intervening act broke any chain of causation.
What case is this?

A

Kennedy

62
Q

In Kennedy, what did the HOL point out about criminal law?

A

that criminal law generally assumed the existence of free will

63
Q

The HOL accepted that there could be situations in which it cud be regarded that both D and V were involved in administering the injection. However they did not give any examples. What case had they specifically stated was wrongly decided?

A

Rogers

64
Q

What happened in the case of Rogers?

A

D had participated in the injection of heroin by holding his belt round V’s arm. COA held that by holding the belt D had particulate in the mechanics of the injection. Guilty of manslaughter. Not appealed to HOL

65
Q

D had participated in the injection of heroin by holding his belt round V’s arm. COA held that by holding the belt D had particulate in the mechanics of the injection. Guilty of manslaughter. Not appealed to HOL
What case is this?

A

Rogers

66
Q

In which case did the Law Lords state that Rogers was wrongly decided?

A

Kennedy

67
Q

Why did the Law Lords in Kennedy state that Rogers had been wrongly decided?

A

as there was no unlawful act of administering the heroin.

68
Q

It is possible that in situations where D has supplied the drugs, then the defendant could be liable for gross negligence manslaughter. This view was put forward in which case?

A

Dias

69
Q

What happened in the case of Dias?

A

D and V self injected heroin together, D noticed V was very ill. V was taken to hospital but died. Conviction quashed. COA suggested that a conviction for gross negligent manslaughter might be possible where a duty of care could be established.

70
Q

D and V self injected heroin together, D noticed V was very ill. V was taken to hospital but died. Conviction quashed. COA suggested that a conviction for gross negligent manslaughter might be possible where a duty of care could be established.
What case is this?

A

Dias

71
Q

What case is an example of when D had a duty of care to V as the drug dealer was the sister and was thus convicted of gross negligent manslaughter?

A

Evans

72
Q

When may gross negligent manslaughter be used as a conviction?

A

if there is a duty established between V and D
If V is particularly vulnerable such as
*a young first time drug user
if D is aware of problems following Vs self injection

73
Q

The HOL decision in what case decided that unlawful act manslaughter cannot be proved if the victim dies after self injecting?

A

Kennedy

74
Q

What must D have the mens rea for under unlawful act manmluaghert?

A

for the unlawful act, not the consequence

75
Q

In what case was it made clear that D need not realise that the act is unlawful or dangerous?

A

Newbury and Jones

76
Q

What are the 3 cases under the element of unlawful act?

A
  • lamb
  • Franklin
  • Lowe
77
Q

What is needed to suffice an unlawful act?

A
  • must be unlawful
  • a civil wrong is not enough
  • It must be an act; an omission will not suffice
78
Q

What are the 7 case under what is a dangerous act?-

A 
Church 
JM and SM 
Mitchell 
Good fellow 
Dawson
Bristow, Dunn and Delay
79
Q

What is needed to suffice the element of what is a dangerous act? 7 steps

A
  • The test for this is objective
  • risk need only be some harm
  • no need to foresee the specific harm caused
  • Act need not be aimed at the final victim
  • An act aimed at property can still be such that the sober and reasonable person would realise risk of some harm
  • Must be risk of physical harm
  • Burglary is not normally a dangerous act but can be carried out in such a way that would make it dangerous
80
Q

What are the 2 cases which come under ‘causes death’?

A

Dalby

Kennedy

81
Q

What are the rules under ‘causes death’ element of unlawful act manslaughter? (3)

A
  • Normal rues of causation apply; must be physical and legal cause
  • An intervening act such as V self injecting drugs breaks causation
  • Merely preparing the injection is not a cause of death.
82
Q

What is the 1 case under the mens rea element of unlawful act manslaughter?

A

Newbury and Jones

83
Q

What is required under the mens rea element of unlawful act manslaughter? (2)

A
  • D must have the mens for the unlawful act

- Not necessary to prove that D foresaw harm from his act

*ANEWL-Involuntry Manslaighter (3 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions