Criminal: Involuntary Manslaughter

Front 1

What is involuntary manslaughter?

Back 1

Where the defendant kills but does not have the intent to kill or where the death is an unintentional consequence of an act

Front 2

What are the two defences which a defendant can use for involuntary manslaughter?

Back 2

Unlawful act manslaughter and gross negligence manslaughter

Front 3

What will the two defences do?

Back 3

These defences will lower a murder charge to manslaughter

Front 4

What is unlawful act manslaughter also known as?

Back 4

Constructive manslaughter

Front 5

Why is unlawful act manslaughter also known as constructive manslaughter?

Back 5

Because we are constructing manslaughter liability on the defendants original liability

Front 6

When is unlawful act manslaughter often used?

Back 6

For unlawful acts such as assault, battery, robbery or criminal damage where a victim ends up dead

Front 7

What is the leading authority for unlawful act manslaughter?

Back 7

[AG’s Ref No. 3 (1994)]

Front 8

What does AG’s Ref No.3 1994 create?

Back 8

The four elements needed for unlawful act manslaughter

Front 9

What are the four elements of unlawful act manslaughter?

Back 9

1. The defendants act must be intentional or voluntary

2. The defendant has to have committed an unlawful act

3. The defendants act must be dangerous

4. The unlawful act must cause the death factually and legally

Front 10

The first element is the defendants act must be intentional or voluntary - what does this mean?

Back 10

The act must be a positive act, not an omission. The act must be intentional or voluntary.

Front 11

What does intentional mean?

Back 11

Not accidental

Front 12

What does voluntary mean?

Back 12

Willed by your conscious mind

Front 13

What is the leading authority for the first element that the defendants act must be intentional or voluntary?

Back 13

[R v Lowe (1973)]

Front 14

What are the leading authorities for the second element that the defendant has to have committed an unlawful act?

Back 14

[R v Franklin (1883)] and [R v Meeking (2012)]

Front 15

What do Franklin and Meeking tell us about the second element - that the defendant must have committed an unlawful act?

Back 15

It must be a criminal offence, not a civil wrong and it must have a mens rea requirement. Therefore it cannot be a strict liability offence (without mens rea).

Front 16

What is a strict liability criminal offence and what are some examples?

Back 16

Offences where there is no mens rea such as speeding or drink driving

Front 17

Which case outlines the importance of having a mens rea requirement?

Back 17

R v Lamb (1967)

Front 18

Does it matter whether the unlawful act is aimed at the victim or not?

Back 18

No, the defendant is still liable

Front 19

Which case outlines that it does not matter whether the unlawful act is aimed at the victim or not

Back 19

R v Larkin (1942)

Front 20

What is the leading authority for the third element that the defendants act must be dangerous?

Back 20

R v Church (1966)

Front 21

What is ‘dangerous’ defined as? Where is this definition found?

Back 21

‘All sober and reasonable people would foresee the risk of some non-serious harm as inevitable as a result of the unlawful act’ - R v Church (1966)

Front 22

With the third element that the defendants act must be dangerous, does it matter what the defendant foresees?

Back 22

No, it’s only matters what the reasonable person foresees

Front 23

Does the reasonable person have to foresee death?

Back 23

No. The reasonable person only has to foresee the risk of some non-serious harm, not even ABH, GBH or death.

Front 24

What is an issue with the third element, that the defendants act must be dangerous?

Back 24

This objective test has a very low threshold. For example you cannot use learning difficulties to escape liability as it matters only what the reasonable person thinks, not what the defendant thinks/thought

Front 25

What two cases demonstrate the third element of a defendants act being dangerous?

Back 25

R v Dawson (1985) and R v Watson (1989)

Front 26

Can you use the thin skull rule in involuntary manslaughter?

Back 26

No, this is a rule on causation so if it is to be used, it’ll be at the causation stage.

Front 27

Which case deals with this mistakes which a defendant makes during the course of the act?

Back 27

R v Ball (1989)

Front 28

Should a reasonable person be able to foresee the specific risk?

Back 28

No! As per the test it is only ‘some non-serious harm’

Front 29

Which case outlines that a reasonable person should be able to foresee only non serious harm and not a specific risk?

Back 29

R v M (2012)

Front 30

Is there an authority for the forth element that the unlawful act must cause the death factually and legally?

Back 30

Not exclusive to manslaughter. This follows the generalised causation rules which have their own authorities.

Front 31

What is the second defence which a defendant may rely on?

Back 31

Gross negligence manslaughter

Front 32

What is the leading authority for gross negligence manslaughter?

Back 32

R v Adomako (1995)

Front 33

What does Adomako create?

Back 33

A four stage test to determine gross negligence manslaughter

Front 34

What are the four elements of the gross negligence manslaughter four stage test?

Back 34

1. The defendant must owe the victim a duty of care

2. The defendant must have breached the duty

3. The breach itself must have caused the victims death both factually and legally

4. The breach of duty must be gross

Front 35

What is the leading authority for the first element that the defendant must owe the victim a duty of care?

Back 35

R v Wacker (2003)

Front 36

What does Wacker tell us?

Back 36

Wacker tells us that when you are looking for a duty of care, you must look at tort law and the law of negligence as well as the Occupiers Liability Act.

Front 37

Which case examines who decides whether the duty of care is owed?

Back 37

R v Willoughby (2005)

Front 38

What does Willoughby say?

Back 38

Both the judge and jury decide whether a duty of care is owed. If the judge decides a duty may be owed then it is passed to the jury to decide. If not the case is withdrawn from the jury.

Front 39

Which case demonstrates the second element, that the defendant must have breached the duty?

Back 39

Blythe v Birmingham Waterworks (1856)

Front 40

What does Blythe v Birmingham Waterworks say about breach?

Back 40

‘Breach is doing something that a reasonable person would not have done or failing to do something that a reasonable person would have done’

Front 41

Which case is the leading authority for the third element that the breach must have caused the victims death both factually and legally?

Back 41

R v Dalloway (1908)

Front 42

What does Dalloway show?

Back 42

That causing the death just factually is not enough, it must be caused legally too

Front 43

What is the leading authority for the fourth element that the breach of duty must be gross?

Back 43

R v Adomako (1995)

Front 44

What is the fourth element often criticised for?

Back 44

Being too vague and uncertain

Front 45

What is a ‘gross breach’ defined as and where can this definition be found?

Back 45

R v Misra (2005) defines a gross breach as something ‘exceptionally bad with an obvious and serious risk of death’ - obvious to the reasonable person

Front 46

Which case reiterates this point?

Back 46

AG’s No.2 (1999) this says that the defendant does not need to foresee death or serious injury but that if the defendant does have foresight it is more likely to be a gross breach

Front 47

Which case confirmed the wording in Misra?

Back 47

Sellu (2016)

Front 48

What is a point of current controversy surrounding gross negligence manslaughter?

Back 48

The number of medics being charged with it