Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
10 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
What is constructive manslaughter? Does D have to appreciate the act as dangerous? and what is the objective test? |
When D performs an act that is dangerous and unlawful and results in victims death D does not have to appreciate the act as dangerous as long as as it was perceived so by sober and reasonable person. The objective test is that it is enough that sober and reasonable person thought that there was a danger of physical injury to victim. |
|
|
Spectrum of blameworthiness: Goodfellow and Mitchell |
Goodfellow a person lit council house on fire, family inside, did not intend for anyone to be hurt. Mitchell guy jumped que got into fight, punched a man who fell on top of old lady who died. |
|
|
Simon Slingsby |
Signet rign caused interior anus to interrupt in sexual intercourse, the act of buggery did not constitute death and could not be used. No assault upon conviction of manslaughter could be based. |
|
|
Church |
The unlawful act must be constituted independently of its dangerousness And their is no requirement that D foresaw harm from his actions. |
|
|
Jennings |
Prosecution must specify the crime they are relying upon. Facts: D was restrained from his brother V to attack E with a knife. He killed his brother V as the knife ended up in him. |
|
|
Dhaliwal |
Committed suicide as she was abused by D for a long time. Hence, for him to be convicted it had to be shown that he had inflicted some psychiatric injury under section 20 OAPA for example. As their was no criminal act he could not be guilty. |
|
|
Dalby |
Prosecution must prove that D caused the harm and that it was directed against V. Supplied drugs and the person overdosed. Supplying drugs was not a harm directed against V. would have been different if helped to inject. |
|
|
Escape cases: Lewis and R v M |
Lewis: person ran into street following altercation and got killed. Causation was not broken if D´s act made the reasonable person react like V did. R v M Club doorman died of aneurysm following an attack. Conviction was upheld. |
|
|
Le Brun |
Only necessary to show that D´s act provoked risk of harm and chain of causation remains unbroken. |
|
|
Dawson |
harm must be physical harm not mere emotional shock. |
