Criminal - Unlawful Killings

Front 1

R v Poulton (1852)

Back 1

To be given the protection of the law of homicide a child must be wholly expelled from the mother’s body and be active. It must exist independent of the mother.

Hint 1

Def strangled baby to death. Was the baby ‘human’ for the purposes of murder/manslaughter? Held, not in this case, no evidence that the child was fully expelled.

Front 2

AG Reference (No.3 1994)

Back 2

Murder could not be committed where unlawful injury had been deliberately inflicted to mother. Mens rea could not be transferred to the foetus.

Hint 2

Def stabbed girlfriend who was pregnant with their child. Child born premature died after 120 days. Held, not murder, but constructive manslaughter.

Front 3

R v Malcherek (1981)

Back 3

Death = irreversible death of the brain stem which controls vital functions.

Hint 3

Def assaulted victim resulting in brain damage, victim on life support, disconnected by doctors. Did the doctors or the def kill the victim? Held, defendant.

Front 4

Actus Reus of Homicide (Causation)

Back 4

Must cause the death of the victim. Must be:
a) Factual causation = but for defendant’s conduct, would the victim’s death have occurred in the way that it did? (R v White)
b) Legal causation = Def’s act need not be the sole cause of death, enough that his act/omission contributed significantly (R v Pagett)

Front 5

R v White (1910)

Back 5

Factual causation = but for the defendants’ conduct, would the victim’s death have occurred in the way that it did?

Hint 5

Def poisoned his mother’s drink intending to kill her. Turns out she died from a heart attack unrelated to consuming the poison. Held, def not liable for her death.

Front 6

R v Cheshire (1991)

Back 6

Def’s conduct must have significantly accelerated death. Only where negligent treatment so independent of the defs acts and in itself potent in causing death, that the jury regard the contribution made by the def to be insignificant will the negligent doctor be liable.

Hint 6

Def shot man who had surgery as a result, the victim died two months later. Def argued medical negligence had caused the death. Held, medical negligence not significant enough to break the chain of causation.

Front 7

Legal Causation (NAI)

Back 7

Def. may escape liability if there is an NAI, but not if:
a) despite the NAI, the injuries inflicted by def. were still an operating/substantial cause of death, or,
b) If there was a NAI, It was foreseeable by a reasonable person in the normal course of events.

Front 8

R v Pagett (1983)

Back 8

Def’s act need not be the sole/main cause of death, it is enough that his act or omission contributed significantly.

Hint 8

Def had relationship with a 16 year old, the break up went sour. He drove to the parents’ house, shot the father and took the mother hostage. He then took the girl hostage at gunpoint. Armed police returned fire and shot the girl. Held, def guilty of manslaughter.

Front 9

R v Watson (1989)

Back 9

If it was foreseeable that such an outcome would occur the def can be said to be the legal cause of the death.

Hint 9

Def threw a brick through the window of an 87 year olds house. He came into the house and verbally abused him; the old man died 90 minutes later of a heart attack. Held, def liable for death of old man.

Front 10

R v Smith (1959)

Back 10

At the time of death if the original wound is still an operating cause then the death a result of the wound. Only if the second cause is so overwhelming as to make the original wound a history then it can be said to have caused death.

Hint 10

Victim died at army medical centre shortly after being stabbed. Received ‘thoroughly bad’ medical treatment. Held, def convicted still, guidelines laid out.

Front 11

R v Jordan (1956)

Back 11

Chain of causation broken, medical treatment had been sufficiently bad to constitute the cause of death.

Hint 11

Victim died in hospital 8 days after stabbing. Poor medical treatment given, initial wound had largely healed. Held, original stabber not convicted. N.B. exceptional facts.

Front 12

R v Blaue (1975)

Back 12

Def must take their victims as they find them, liable for consequences even if they are unforeseeable.

Hint 12

Def stabbed a woman, who refused a blood transfusion due to religious beliefs.
Victim died, the transfusion would have saved her life. Held, def convicted of manslaughter.

Front 13

Murder

Back 13

1) Actus Reus = defendant must cause death of human.
2) Mens Rea = malice aforethought, intention to kill or intention to cause GBH. Only intention will suffice, no recklessness aspect, entirely subjective test.

Front 14

Voluntary Manslaughter

Back 14

Sentence reduced if partial defence to murder present:
1) Diminished responsibility
2) Loss of control
3) Suicide pact

Front 15

M’ Naughtens’ Case (1843)

Back 15

Complete defence of insanity when ‘defendant suffering from disease of the mind causing a defect in reason so he did not know the nature or quality or the act, or that it was legally or morally wrong’.

Front 16

Diminished Responsibility

Back 16

S.2 (1) of Homicide Act 1957, four elements to establish:
a) Abnormality of mental functioning (medical advice R v Byrne).
b) Abnormality arose from recognised medical condition
c) Substantial Impairment of defendants’ ability to perform s.2 (1A), ability to understand the nature of conduct, form rational judgement, andexercise self-control impaired.
d) Abnormality must provide an explanation for his acts/omissions

Front 17

R v Dietschmann (2003)

Back 17

s.2 Homicide Act does not require abnormality of mind to be the sole cause of the def’s acts. Confirmed in R v Wood.

Hint 17

Def had intimate relationship with his aunt, after she died he began to drink heavily, he was prescribed antidepressants. Later he killed whist out drinking. Held, his murder conviction was quashed by the HOL.

Front 18

Loss of Control

Back 18

Ss.54/55 Coroners and Justice Act, three main elements to establish:
a) loss of control
b) qualifying trigger
c) similar reaction

Front 19

Constructive Manslaughter

Back 19

Defendant must:
a) Do an unlawful act
b) Which is dangerous
c) Which causes the victims death (purely causation)

Front 20

R v Lamb (1967)

Back 20

If there is no unlawful act, the defendant cannot possibly be guilty of constructive manslaughter.

Hint 20

Def accidently shot friend with old revolver, did not realise that gun cylinder moved around lined up the next cylinder, therefore did no realise that a shot would be fired.

Front 21

DPP v Newbury (1977)

Back 21

Any offence requiring intention or recklessness will do, e.g. criminal damage.

Hint 21

Defendants pushed a paving stone over a bridge onto the path of a train, killing the guard. Held, defendants guilty of constructive manslaughter.

Front 22

R v Lowe (1973)

Back 22

Failure to act cannot give rise to a charge of constructive manslaughter; the defendant must have committed a positive act.

Hint 22

Defendant had neglected child causing its death. Held on appeal, no conviction as no unlawful act had been committed.

Front 23

R v Ball (1989)

Back 23

Objective test: ‘would a sober and reasonable person think the act was dangerous’? If reasonable person had been present at the scene of the crime and watched the whole act being performed.

Hint 23

Defendant loaded shotgun with two cartridges taken from his pocket which contained live and blank cartridges. He fired the gun at the victim intending to scare her, actually killed her. Held, convicted of constructive manslaughter.

Front 24

Manslaughter by Gross Negligence

Back 24

R v Adomako:
a) A duty of care was owed by the def. to the victim(R v Willoughby).
b) A breach of that duty of care.
c) A risk that the defendants conduct could cause death (R v Singh)
d) Evidence that the breach of duty did cause the death of the victim.
e) Jury concludes that the defendant fell so far below the standards to constitute gross negligence and deserves criminal punishment.

Front 25

R v Khan (1998)

Back 25

Liability for a charge of homicide (gross negligence here) can be incurred through the defendant’s omission to act but only if there is a duty to act

Hint 25

Defendant a drug dealer who supplied a 15 year old girl with heroin. Girl died in defendants flat from OD, he moved her body onto waste ground. Held, conviction of manslaughter by gross negligence unsafe as jury not directed as to whether there was a duty of care.

Front 26

Corporate Manslaughter

Back 26

s.1 (1) 2007 Act:
a) The defendant is the relevant organisation (s.1(2)) (wide definition)
b) The organisation owes a relevant duty of care to the deceased
c) The organisation breaches that duty
d) The breach causes death
e) The breach is gross breach
f) A substantial element of the breach is in the way the activities were managed or organised by senior management

Front 27

Penalties for Corporate Manslaughter

Back 27

• Unlimited fine
• Order to remedy the breach of duty (s.9).
• ‘Name and shame’ by making a publicity order (s.10).
• Individual can always be personally liable for gross negligence manslaughter
• Failure to comply with Health and Safety at Work Act can result in criminal prosecution of the organisation, individual directors, officers and managers.
• S.2 Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 gives court the power to make a disqualification order.

Front 28

Health and Safety at Work Act 1974

Back 28

• S. 2 (1) – requires an employer to ensure, as far as reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of all his employees’.
• S.3 – employers and self-employed should conduct their undertakings in such a way as to ensure those not in their employment should not be exposed to risks