~law~ INVOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER unit 3

~law~
INVOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER unit 3

MANSLAUGHTER BY UNLAWFUL ACT
-the prosecution has to establish
-1)d has committed an unlawful act which must be a crime
-2)the unlawful act was dangerous in the view of all right thinking members of the public
-3)d's act was a significant cause of death

1.Must be a criminal offence
a civil wrong or omission is not enough

FRANKLIN 1883
defendant threw a box off of the pier and hit a swimmer which caused them to die, the prosecution argued that the act compromised the tort of tresspass
~a mere tort is not sufficient for unlawful act manslaughter, the act must be a crime~

R V LAMB 1967
defendant accidentally shot his friend in the back
~wasn't guilty of unlawful act manslaughter because his friend didn't fear an assault so there was no criminal act

2.Act must be dangerous

R V CHURCH 1966
sober and reasonable persons test
~an act could be considered dangerous if there was an objective risk of some harm resulting from it, sober and reasonable people who would have the same knowledge as the defendant would consider it dangerous

R V BALL 1989
~reasonable persons assessment on the facts and not on what the defendant knew

Act was a significant cause of death

R V LOWE 1973
defendant killed his chilled by neglecting it
~an omission is not enough to be convicted of unlawful act manslaughter

-factual causation-but for test-
R V WHITE 2006
poisoned his mum with milk but she died of a heart attack, he wasn't liable for her death
~but for not his actions she would've died anyway

-legal causation-operating and substantial cause-
R V JORDAN 1956
was stabbed, when in hospital he was given antibiotics that he's already had an allergic reaction to and he died in hospital
defendant wasn't liable
~the hospital's actions were palpably wrong and broke the chain of causation

-take your victim as you find them-
R V BLAUE 1975
jahovas witness who refused blood transfusion after being stabbed
defendant still liable
~victims religion didn't break the chain of causation

R V DAWSON 1985
robbery at petrol station
~emotional disturbance wasn't enough

DPP V NEWBURY & JONES 1976
pushed slabs off of a bridge and injured people on train
guilty of unlawful act manslaughter
~they did not need to foresee a particular type of harm just that some harm may happen

R V MITCHELL 1982
defendant punched a man who fell into an old lady who broke her leg and later died in hospital
~the dangerous act doesn't have to be aimed at the person who died

R V SHOHID
victim was attacked at station and forced on to the tracks where he was hit by a train
~sufficiently serious to cause death

GROSS NEGLIGENCE MANSLAUGHTER
-the prosecution has to prove
-1)a duty of care is owed by the defendant to the victim
-2)there is a risk of death to the victim in the breach
-3)the breach of duty caused or contributed to the victims death
-4)the jury must decide if the breach is so serious as to be criminal

-establishing rules for GNM-
R V ADAMAKO 1994
d was an anaesthetist, don't notice the oxygen tube had become disconnected and patient died of lack of oxygen
doctors gave evidence stating a competent anaesthetist would've noticed
~1.duty of care owed2.risk of deatg3.breach of duty caused death4.serious

1.a duty of care is owed

CAPARO V DICKMAN 1990
1-proximity
2-reasonably foreseeable
3-fair, just and reasonable
~don't focus too much on this

there is a risk of death- omissions

-assumed responsibility-
R V WACKER 2003
was helping immigrants across the channel but closed the vent for them to breathe for too long
~guilty

-public policy
R V WILLOUGHBY 2004
defendant owned a pub, he asked v to set it on fire for financial benefit, v was killed in the fire
~duty not only arose because he owned the building but also because he enlisted v
~guilty

-contractual duty-
R V PITTWOOD 1902
left gate for railway crossing open when he went on lunch which led people to get injured and one die
~guilty

3.causation

-factual causation-but for test-
R V WHITE 2006
poisoned his mum with milk but she died of a heart attack, he wasn't liable for her death
~but for not his actions she would've died anyway

4.serious as to be criminal

"the jury will have to consider whether the extent to which the defendant's conduct departed from the proper standard of care incumbent upon him, involving the risk of death to the patient, was such that it should be judged as criminal"
-Lord Mackay in Adamako

"the accused showed such disregard for the life and safety of others as to amount to a crime"
-Lord Hewart CJ in Bateman