Criminal Law - 3 - Involuntary Manslaughter

Front 1

DPP v Newbury and Jones

Back 1

Confirmed 4 elements of constructive manslaughter offence

1. D did an act intentionally
2. Act was criminally unlawful
3. Act was dangerous
4. Act caused the victims death

Front 2

R v Church

Back 2

"..the unlawful act must be such as all sober and reasonable people would inevitably recognise must subject the other person to, at least, the risk of some harm."

Front 3

R v Dawson

Back 3

The unawful act for constructive manslaughter must expose the victim to the risk of physical harm. Mere emotional disturbances do not count.

Front 4

R v Goodfellow

Back 4

Man who sets fire to his council house to expedite rehousing.

The unlawful act need not be directed at a person

Front 5

R v Lamb

Back 5

Misunderstanding of workings of a revolver.

The defendant must commit the actus reus and have the mens rea required for the unlawful act which causes the death.

Front 6

R v Kennedy

Back 6

D prepared a syringe of heroin and gave it to V who injected and died.

The free, deliberate and informed decision of the deceased to administer a drug breaks the chain of causation

Front 7

R v Adomako

Back 7

Gross negligence manslaughter.

Anaesthetist fails to notice oxygen tube has disconnected.

It is necessary to prove
1. There was a duty of care
2. It was breached
3. Breach involved the risk of death
4. Breach caused the death
5. Breach was grossly negligent and consequently criminal.

Front 8

Lowe (1973)

Back 8

If an omission is no more than neglgent then the doctrine of 'unlawful and dangerous act' manslaughter does not apply.

Gross negligence manslaughter MIGHT apply

Front 9

In constructive manslaughter, what is the correct test to apply to the unlawful and dangerous act and which case is it derived from?

Back 9

Objective.

Church.

Front 10

Dhaliwal (2006)

Back 10

Abused women commits suicide. D had struck her a minor blow.

Held: this was not an unlawful and dangerous act because there was no risk of PHYSICAL harm.

Psychological harm might apply.

Front 11

For gross negligence manslaughter, when does a duty arise?

Which case explains this?

Back 11

Ordinary tortious principles of negligence

R v Bateman

Front 12

R v Misra

Back 12

Only a risk of death, and not serious injury, will be sufficient for gross negligence manslaughter

Front 13

R v Franklin (1883)

Back 13

D threw a box off Brighton Pier and hit V who was swimming. V drowned.

Principal - the act from which liability is constructed must be a crime, not merely a tort.

D was guilty of GROSS NEGLIGENCE manslaughter and not CONSTRUCTIVE manslaughter

Front 14

Facts of DPP v Newbury and Jones

Back 14

Paving stone is dropped from a bridge onto a railway track and it hits a train.

Front 15

What is the actus reus of constructive manslaughter?

Back 15

D committed a dangerous act which caused the death of V

Front 16

What is the mens rea of constructive manslaughter?

Back 16

D INTENTIONALLY committed the act which caused death

Front 17

Define requirements for constructive manslaughter

Back 17

This offence requires that the defendant intentionally committed a criminal act which resulted in the death of the victim

Front 18

Watson (1989)

Back 18

Assessment of the dangerous act is objective but the "reasonable" person should be endowed with all of the knowledge that the defendant has acquired during the course of the crime

Front 19

Constructive manslaughter where the base crime is ARSON

Back 19

Goodfellow

Front 20

Constructive manslaughter where the base crime is robbery

Back 20

Dawson

Front 21

Constructive manslaughter where the base crime is criminal damanger

Back 21

Newbury & Jones

Front 22

Constructive manslaughter where the base crime is burglary

Back 22

Watson

Front 23

Constructive manslaughter where the base crime is assault

Back 23

Hayward

Front 24

R v Evans (2009)

Back 24

D failed to summon assistance for V who had adverse reaction to drugs supplied by D

Held: For the purposes of gross negligence manslaughter, where D has created or contributed to a state of affairs that they ought reasonably to have known were life threatening, they had a DUTY TO ACT

Front 25

What is the test for negligence in gross negligence manslaughter?

Which case does it come from?

Back 25

Objective

Adomako (1995)

Front 26

What is the significance of R v Misra?

Back 26

It confirmed that the objective test for gross negligence manslaughter has survived, despite R v G (2003) overruling Caldwell recklessness.

Front 27

What four states of mind could lead a jury to make a finding of gross negligence for the purposes of gross negligence manslaughter?

Back 27

1. Indifference to an obvious risk of injury to health

2. Actual foresight of the risk + determination to run it anyway

3. An appreciation of the risk + intention to avoid it but high degree of negligence in attempted avoidance

4. Inattention which goes beyond 'mere inadvertence' in respect of an important matter which the DEFENDANT'S DUTY demanded he should address

Front 28

R v DPP ex parte Jones

Back 28

The test for negligent manslaughter is an objective one

Front 29

R v Dalloway (1847)

Back 29

The breach must CAUSE the death.

Cart driver not holding the reins

Front 30

Liddar (1999

Back 30

D drove away from scene of a fight with V hanging from his car. V fell and was killed by the car wheels.

Held: that a defendant would be liable for manslaughter where he foresaw death or GBH as being highly probable

Front 31

Mark (2004)

Back 31

Owner of a cleaning company. An employee died after an explosion caused by cleaning fluids.

D argued that he was unware of the risk posed.

Held: The breach of duty in gross negligence manslaughter is assessed objectively and the defendant's lack of foresight was irrelevant.