Reading...
Play button
Play button
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;
14 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Constructive or Unlawful Act Manslaughter
|
1. D must have done an unlawful act.
2. The unlawful act must have been dangerous 3. The dangerous, unlawful act must have caused death: |
|
|
Unlawful Act
|
->Only criminal law offences: R v Franklin (1883)
->All elements of unlawful act present. Lamb [1967] ->must be act, omissions will not suffice: Lowe [1973] ->need not be directed at the victim: Larkin (1942) ->need not be directed against a person: Goodfellow (1986) |
|
|
'Dangerous'
|
Church [1965] "all sober and reasonable people would inevitably recognise...the risk of some harm resulting therefrom, albeit not serious harm."
must be physical harm:R v Carey & Ors [2006] |
|
|
The test is thus objective
|
The reasonable person will thus have only the knowledge of an observer any special factors which would not be apparent to an observer will not be taken into account.
|
|
|
The unlawful dangerous act must cause death
|
-articularly problematic for the courts in relation to where a death occurs from taking drugs. The question arises as to whether those who supply such drugs can be liable for manslaughter.
|
|
|
R v Rodgers [2003]
|
affirmed decision in R v Dias. Never appropriate to convict a person of constructive manslaughter, where he supplies a class A drug to a fully informed and responsible adult who then freely and voluntarily self administers the drug.
|
|
|
Mens Rea
|
->Need only be established that the defendant had the mens rea of the unlawful act committed. There is no requirement that of mens rea in relation to the ensuing deathDPP v Newbury [1977]
|
|
|
Following Adomako [1994] necessary for the prosecution to establish that the defendant:
|
->Owed a duty of care to the victim
->Was in breach of duty ->The breach of duty caused death ->The defendant's conduct was so bad in all the circumstances as to amount in the jury's opinion to a crime. |
|
|
D must have owed V a duty of care
Lord Mackay said ordinary principles of negligence should apply when determining existence of duty of care existed and breach (Adomako (1994)) |
Duty of care from civil - Donghue v Stevenson (1932)
Responsibility assumed -Stone & Dobinson (1977) Contractual duty - Singh (1999) Litchfield (1998) Complicity of crime- Wacker (2002) Life threatening state of affairs- Evans [2009] |
|
|
D must have breached the duty of care
|
D will be held to the standards of the reasonable professional if applicable: Prentice
|
|
|
The breach must have caused death
|
It must have been the BREACH of the duty that caused death: Hayward
|
|
|
The breach must have been grossly negligent
|
The breach must have been so negligent as to be criminal: Andrews v DPP
|
|
|
Andrews v DPP (1937)
|
D attempted to pass another car by driving on the offside of the road and killed V, a pedestrian
Lord Atkin: .. a very high degree of negligence is required to be proved before the felony is established... |
|
|
Mens Rea
|
A-G ref no 2 of 1999 [2000] Confirmed that R v Adomako required no proof of mens rea on behalf of the defendant
|
