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;
29 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
- 3rd side (hint)
|
Voluntary Manslaughter |
Same MR and AR as murder however the use of a defence reduces the mandatory life sentence to a discretionary one |
|
|
|
Three defences |
Diminished responsibility, loss of control or participation in a suicide pact |
|
|
|
Involuntary manslaughter |
The defendant as the same AR as murder however lacks the required MR of malice afterthought for murder |
|
|
|
Two types of involuntary manslaughter |
Dangerous or unlawful act and gross negligence manslaughter |
|
|
|
Unlawful or Dangerous Act Manslaughter |
This is where a defendant has set out to commit a lessor criminal offence but in doing so causes the death of another person |
|
|
|
The defendant must carry out an act |
The defendant must physically do something and cannot ommit something |
Unlawful or Dangerous Act Manslaughter |
|
|
The defendant must carry out an act case |
R v Lowe 1973 |
Unlawful or Dangerous Act Manslaughter |
|
|
The act must be a criminal offence |
It can be any offence under criminal law however it cannot be a civil offence |
Unlawful or Dangerous Act Manslaughter |
|
|
The act must be a criminal offence case |
R v Franklin 1883 |
Unlawful or Dangerous Act Manslaughter |
|
|
The act must be dangerous |
If there is an objective risk that harm will come from it then it is dangerous and jury must be satisfied that the reasonable person would see this risk |
|
|
|
The act must be dangerous cases |
R v Church 1966 - throws an unconscious woman into a river should've forseen that damage could be caused to her R v JM and SM 2012 - only a general risk of harm needs to be forseesble R v Watson 1989 - a reasonable person doesn't need to appreciate the harm caused but the risk at the time the act was committed |
|
|
|
The act must be the cause of death of a human being |
With murder it must be the cause of death for a human being Factual causation and legal causation must be proved. Any intervening acts must also be considered - novus actus interveniens |
Unlawful or Dangerous Act Manslaughter |
|
|
The act must be the death of a human being cases |
AGR ref 3 of 1994 - killing of a foetus or an animal isn't murder R v White 1910 - attempted to kill his mother but mum didn't drink poison but for test R v Smith 1959 - was the defendants actions the operating and substantial cause of the Vs death R v Kimsley 1996 - the act need only be more than a slight trifling cause of the death |
|
|
|
Medical cases to break chain |
R v Jordan 1956 - D stabbed victim but in hospital treatment V recieved antibiotics that they were deathly allergic to breaking the chain of causation - medical break R v Smith 1959 - D stabbed victim however victim suffered from poor treatment and died however this was not enough to break causation |
|
|
|
Third party acts case |
R v Paggett 1983 - D grabs V and uses her as a human gun shield and she gets shot and dies as police had no other choice but defend themselves this didn't break the chain of causation |
|
|
|
Victims own acts cases |
R v Williams 1992 - if a victims acts are entirely unreasonable, unforeseeable and daft it'll break the chain of causation R v Roberts 1971 - man gives girl a lift and makes unwanted sexual advances and girl jumps out car and this isn't unreasonable or unforeseeable R v Blaue 1975 - a victim not accepting blood transfusions because of religion does not break chain of causation |
|
|
|
Mens rea |
Is the mens rea for the crime committed However this could be questionable as in Lamb fear would lead to a manslaughter charge which is a keep from a non serious offence to a serious offence |
|
|
|
Cases for Mr |
Lamb 1967 - friend kills friend when playing around with gun, no assault no unlawful act manslaughter |
|
|
|
Gross negligence Manslaughter |
Failure to take proper care of something |
|
|
|
Gross negligence case |
Donoghue V Stevenson 1932 |
|
|
|
Breach in duty of care |
Caparo test Is the harm reasonably foreseeable? Is there a proximate relationship between the parties? Is it fair, just and reasonable to impose a liability ? |
|
|
|
Breach in duty Cases |
Caparo V Dickerman 1990 R v Wacker 2003 - immigrants trapped inside vechile which had vents but were closed |
|
|
|
Duty of care |
Once it has been established it must be shown that defendant fell below the standard of care that a reasonable person would expect |
|
|
|
Duty of care case |
Bolam V Friern Hospital Management Committee 1957 - skilled professional is judged by the profession they are in |
|
|
|
Causing death under the Queen's peace |
Chain of causation must be clearly established and only a novus actus interveniens can break that chain |
|
|
|
Gross negligence |
Is the defendants negligence so bad that it can be considered criminal. Lord Mackay said that the jury must consider how far the Ds conduct departed from the proper standard of care |
|
|
|
Gross negligence |
R v Bateman 1925 - if negligence goes past the mere matter of compensation and show a disregard for human life then it should be considered criminal R v Misra and Srivastava 2005 - a serious mistake or a error in judgement will not suffice for gross negligence |
|
|
|
Diminished Responsibility |
Was the defendant suffering from a mental abnormality? Has the issue arrised from a recognised medical condition? Did it substantially reduce their ability to excercise self control? Does it provide an explanation for their actions? |
|
|
|
Abnormality of mental functioning cases |
R v Ahluwalia 1993 - battered woman syndrome R v Gittens - chronic depression R v Campbell 1997 - Epilepsy |
|
