Homicide - Involuntary Manslaughter

Front 1

Andrews v DPP

Back 1

D was driving and overtook negligently, killing a pedestrian in the process.

Held that there is a difference between doing an unlawful act and doing a lawful act negligently or even recklessly.

Hint 1

Unlawful & Dangerous Act Manslaughter - Act must be unlawful per se

Front 2

Church

Back 2

V taunted D about his sexual impotence. D lost his temper, knocked her unconscious and strangled her. He then panicked and dumped her in a river, where she drowned.

D convicted of manslaughter.

The act must be such that 'all sober and reasonable people would inevitably recognise it as exposing V to SOME harm'.

Hint 2

Unlawful & Dangerous Act Manslaughter - Act must be dangerous

Front 3

Lowe

Back 3

D had a baby, and was given the child by her partner to take to the doctor. She said she had, but hadn't. baby died of dehydration.

No liability. Held that liability applied only to acts, not to omissions.

Hint 3

Unlawful & Dangerous Act Manslaughter - The act must be a positive act

Front 4

Kennedy

Back 4

D prepared and supplied syringe of heroin to V. V injected himself and died.

Conviction quashed. There was no unlawful act which caused V's death.

V had a choice, knowing the facts, whether to inject himself. In the case of a fully-informed and responsible adult, D's actions in supplying the drug, though unlawful, cannot be taken to have caused V's death.

Hint 4

Unlawful & Dangerous Act Manslaughter - Unlawful act must cause the death

Front 5

Lamb

Back 5

D and his friend (young boys) were playing with a gun. It had two rounds in the chamber, but neither was aligned with the barrel. Thinking this would mean the gun would not fire, D pointed the gun at his friend and pulled the trigger, killing him.

Prosecution argued on the basis of assault, but since neither boy apprehended the danger there was no mens rea for assault (or actus reus, for that matter).

Hint 5

Unlawful & Dangerous Act Manslaughter - Must be committed with mens rea

Front 6

DPP v Newbury

Back 6

The Ds threw a paving slab off a bridge into the path of an oncoming train. The slab went through one of the windows, killing a guard.

Ds convicted.

The boys argued that they had not foreseen any harm arising. Held that foreseeability was not subjective, but objective.

Hint 6

Unlawful & Dangerous Act Manslaughter - Objective foreseeability

Front 7

Dawson

Back 7

D tried to rob a petrol station. Attendant (V) triggered the alarm, and D ran away. Nevertheless, V died from the emotional disturbance.

Conviction quashed.

Only foreseeable that D would cause emotional disturbance. Not sufficient (subject to Watson exception).

Hint 7

Unlawful & Dangerous Act Manslaughter - More than mere emotional disturbance foreseeable

Front 8

Watson

Back 8

Where D knows that V is peculiarly frail, he may be convicted where emotional disturbance caused by D causes V to die.

Hint 8

Unlawful & Dangerous Act Manslaughter - Frailty of V known to D

Front 9

AG's Ref. (no.3 of 1994)

Back 9

That's it

Hint 9

Unlawful & Dangerous Act Manslaughter - The act need not be directed at the victim

Front 10

Adomako

Back 10

D was performing surgery on V, alarm sounded. Took him 4 1/2 minutes to check V's oxygen tube, which had become dislodged. V died.

Jury to consider, in light of the risk of death, whether D's conduct departed sufficiently from the expected standard of care so as to attract criminal liability.

Arguably circular.

Hint 10

Gross Negligence Manslaughter - Falling below standard of care

Front 11

Singh

Back 11

It must be reasonably foreseeable not merely that there is a risk of injury, but that there is a risk of death.

Hint 11

Gross Negligence Manslaughter - Foreseeability of risk of INJURY not sufficient

Front 12

White

Back 12

'But for' test

Hint 12

Factual Causation (General)

Front 13

Pagett

Back 13

D's actions contributed significantly to the harm.

Hint 13

Legal Causation (General)

Front 14

Roberts

Back 14

D drove a girl (V) from a party, but instead of taking her home he drove her to a remote location and began making sexual advances. She jumped out of the car at speed, suffering a concussion as well as cuts and bruises.

D argued that his actions had not created a foreseeable risk of the injuries V sustained.

Held that where V's actions are a natural reaction to D's, it does not matter whether D foresaw them. Novus actus only applies where V's actions are so daft as to be objectively unforeseeable.

Hint 14

Legal Causation - Novus Actus (General)

Front 15

Blaue

Back 15

D entered the home of V - a Jehovah's witness - and asked her for sex. When she refused, he stabbed her four times. She needed a blood transfusion, but refused due to her religious beliefs and died.

D convicted.

Though taking the transfusion would probably have saved her life, the wound was still an operative cause of death. You must take your victim as you find him, and this includes strong beliefs. A policy decision really.

Hint 15

Legal Causation - Eggshell Skull Rule