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;
48 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
What is involuntary manslaughter? |
Where the defendant kills but does not have the intent to kill or where the death is an unintentional consequence of an act |
|
What are the two defences which a defendant can use for involuntary manslaughter? |
Unlawful act manslaughter and gross negligence manslaughter |
|
What will the two defences do? |
These defences will lower a murder charge to manslaughter |
|
What is unlawful act manslaughter also known as? |
Constructive manslaughter |
|
Why is unlawful act manslaughter also known as constructive manslaughter? |
Because we are constructing manslaughter liability on the defendants original liability |
|
When is unlawful act manslaughter often used? |
For unlawful acts such as assault, battery, robbery or criminal damage where a victim ends up dead |
|
What is the leading authority for unlawful act manslaughter? |
[AG’s Ref No. 3 (1994)] |
|
What does AG’s Ref No.3 1994 create? |
The four elements needed for unlawful act manslaughter |
|
What are the four elements of unlawful act manslaughter? |
1. The defendants act must be intentional or voluntary 2. The defendant has to have committed an unlawful act 3. The defendants act must be dangerous 4. The unlawful act must cause the death factually and legally |
|
The first element is the defendants act must be intentional or voluntary - what does this mean? |
The act must be a positive act, not an omission. The act must be intentional or voluntary. |
|
What does intentional mean? |
Not accidental |
|
What does voluntary mean? |
Willed by your conscious mind |
|
What is the leading authority for the first element that the defendants act must be intentional or voluntary? |
[R v Lowe (1973)] |
|
What are the leading authorities for the second element that the defendant has to have committed an unlawful act? |
[R v Franklin (1883)] and [R v Meeking (2012)] |
|
What do Franklin and Meeking tell us about the second element - that the defendant must have committed an unlawful act? |
It must be a criminal offence, not a civil wrong and it must have a mens rea requirement. Therefore it cannot be a strict liability offence (without mens rea). |
|
What is a strict liability criminal offence and what are some examples? |
Offences where there is no mens rea such as speeding or drink driving |
|
Which case outlines the importance of having a mens rea requirement? |
R v Lamb (1967) |
|
Does it matter whether the unlawful act is aimed at the victim or not? |
No, the defendant is still liable |
|
Which case outlines that it does not matter whether the unlawful act is aimed at the victim or not |
R v Larkin (1942) |
|
What is the leading authority for the third element that the defendants act must be dangerous? |
R v Church (1966) |
|
What is ‘dangerous’ defined as? Where is this definition found? |
‘All sober and reasonable people would foresee the risk of some non-serious harm as inevitable as a result of the unlawful act’ - R v Church (1966) |
|
With the third element that the defendants act must be dangerous, does it matter what the defendant foresees? |
No, it’s only matters what the reasonable person foresees |
|
Does the reasonable person have to foresee death? |
No. The reasonable person only has to foresee the risk of some non-serious harm, not even ABH, GBH or death. |
|
What is an issue with the third element, that the defendants act must be dangerous? |
This objective test has a very low threshold. For example you cannot use learning difficulties to escape liability as it matters only what the reasonable person thinks, not what the defendant thinks/thought |
|
What two cases demonstrate the third element of a defendants act being dangerous? |
R v Dawson (1985) and R v Watson (1989) |
|
Can you use the thin skull rule in involuntary manslaughter? |
No, this is a rule on causation so if it is to be used, it’ll be at the causation stage. |
|
Which case deals with this mistakes which a defendant makes during the course of the act? |
R v Ball (1989) |
|
Should a reasonable person be able to foresee the specific risk? |
No! As per the test it is only ‘some non-serious harm’ |
|
Which case outlines that a reasonable person should be able to foresee only non serious harm and not a specific risk? |
R v M (2012) |
|
Is there an authority for the forth element that the unlawful act must cause the death factually and legally? |
Not exclusive to manslaughter. This follows the generalised causation rules which have their own authorities. |
|
What is the second defence which a defendant may rely on? |
Gross negligence manslaughter |
|
What is the leading authority for gross negligence manslaughter? |
R v Adomako (1995) |
|
What does Adomako create? |
A four stage test to determine gross negligence manslaughter |
|
What are the four elements of the gross negligence manslaughter four stage test? |
1. The defendant must owe the victim a duty of care 2. The defendant must have breached the duty 3. The breach itself must have caused the victims death both factually and legally 4. The breach of duty must be gross |
|
What is the leading authority for the first element that the defendant must owe the victim a duty of care? |
R v Wacker (2003) |
|
What does Wacker tell us? |
Wacker tells us that when you are looking for a duty of care, you must look at tort law and the law of negligence as well as the Occupiers Liability Act. |
|
Which case examines who decides whether the duty of care is owed? |
R v Willoughby (2005) |
|
What does Willoughby say? |
Both the judge and jury decide whether a duty of care is owed. If the judge decides a duty may be owed then it is passed to the jury to decide. If not the case is withdrawn from the jury. |
|
Which case demonstrates the second element, that the defendant must have breached the duty? |
Blythe v Birmingham Waterworks (1856) |
|
What does Blythe v Birmingham Waterworks say about breach? |
‘Breach is doing something that a reasonable person would not have done or failing to do something that a reasonable person would have done’ |
|
Which case is the leading authority for the third element that the breach must have caused the victims death both factually and legally? |
R v Dalloway (1908) |
|
What does Dalloway show? |
That causing the death just factually is not enough, it must be caused legally too |
|
What is the leading authority for the fourth element that the breach of duty must be gross? |
R v Adomako (1995) |
|
What is the fourth element often criticised for? |
Being too vague and uncertain |
|
What is a ‘gross breach’ defined as and where can this definition be found? |
R v Misra (2005) defines a gross breach as something ‘exceptionally bad with an obvious and serious risk of death’ - obvious to the reasonable person |
|
Which case reiterates this point? |
AG’s No.2 (1999) this says that the defendant does not need to foresee death or serious injury but that if the defendant does have foresight it is more likely to be a gross breach |
|
Which case confirmed the wording in Misra? |
Sellu (2016) |
|
What is a point of current controversy surrounding gross negligence manslaughter? |
The number of medics being charged with it |