Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Requirements for liability for Homicide - LO3 - Requirements of…
Requirements for liability for Homicide - LO3 - Requirements of Involuntary Manslaughter
reckless manslaughter including the restricted circumstances in which it applies
constructive manslaughter including the meaning of "unlawful act", "dangerous" and the mens rea requirement.
gross negligence manslaughter including the meaning of "gross negligence" and the mens rea requirement.
rules governing liability for involuntary manslaughter
criticisms of the rules
proposals for reform
R v Franklin (1883)
The defendant while walking along a pier, took up a “good sized box” from a stall and threw it into the sea where it struck a swimmer and killed him. The defendant was guilty of manslaughter as death arose from an unlawful act, ie taking another’s property and throwing it into the sea.
Andrews v DPP (1937)
Where a person is indicted for manslaughter for having, while driving a motor car, unlawfully killed a man, the judge, in directing the jury, should in the first instance tell them that the facts must be such that in their opinion the negligence of the accused went beyond a mere matter of compensation between subjects and showed such a disregard for the life and safety of others as to amount to a crime against the State and conduct deserving punishment; he should then explain that such degree of negligence is not necessarily the same as that which is required for the offence of dangerous driving; and further he should indicate the conditions under which they may acquit the accused of manslaughter and convict him of dangerous driving.
R v Lowe (1973)
held, allowing the appeal, that manslaughter by negligence required proof of a high degree of negligence amounting to recklessness, and mere neglect was not enough.
R v Church (1966)
The trial judge had thus misdirected the jury by claiming that Mr Church’s belief in the victim’s death when he threw her into the river was irrelevant. However, despite the misdirection, there was no substantial miscarriage of justice on the whole because, on proper direction, the verdict would necessarily have been that of guilty.
R v Dawson (1985)
The convictions were quashed. The jury were aware of the attendant's heart condition whereas a reasonable person present at the time of the attack would not have known this. The direction to the jury was therefore a mis-direction leaving the convictions unsafe.
R v Goodfellow (1986)
In a case of manslaughter by an unlawful and dangerous act the correct direction for the jury was that where the defendant did an unlawful act of such a kind as all sober and reasonable people would inevitably recognise a risk of some harm resulting therefrom, and death was caused thereby, the defendant was guilty of manslaughter. It was not necessary for the unlawful act to be directed at the victim so long as there was no intervening cause before death.
R v Lamb (1967)
There was no unlawful act as no assault had been committed as the victim did not believe the gun would go off therefore he did not apprehend immediate unlawful personal violence.
A-G's Ref (no 3 of 1994) (1998)
The trial judge held that he could not be convicted of murder or manslaughter since at the time of the attack the foetus was not in law classed as a human being and thus the mens rea aimed at the mother could not be transferred to the foetus as it would constitute a different offence
R v Bateman (1925)
The Court held that in order to establish criminal liability for manslaughter by negligence, it must be proven that (1) the doctor owed a duty of care to his patient, (2) this duty was not discharged, (3) this failure to discharge his duty caused the death, and, (4) a gross level of negligence to satisfy the mens rea element of the crime. Court of Appeal found the judge in first instance misdirected the jury and quashed the guilty verdict.
R v Adomako (1994)
In cases involving manslaughter by breach of a duty of care the relevant questions are whether there existed a duty of care, whether there had been a breach of that duty, whether the breach had caused the death and, if so, whether the breach should be characterised as gross negligence and a crime.
A-G's Ref (no2 of 1999) (2000)
yes a defendant can be properly convicted of manslaughter by gross negligence in the absence of evidence as the defendant's state of mind. The Adomako test is objective, but a defendant who is reckless may well be the more readily found to be grossly negligent to a criminal degree.
R v Misra (2005)
The patient died of toxic shock as a result of the untreated infection. The appellants sought to challenge the test of gross negligence manslaughter laid down in Adomako
R v Cato (1976)
Held, dismissing D's appeal, (1) that the prosecution had to prove that the injection of heroin was a cause of death and not de minimis; (2) although F's consent to the injection of heroin might be relevant to consideration of whether D had acted with recklessness or gross negligence, the victim's consent was not generally a defence to a charge of manslaughter; (3) the use of heroin was potentially harmful and therefore it was a "noxious" thing for the purposes of s.23
R v Dias (2002)
The appellant's conviction for manslaughter was quashed. The Court of Appeal decision in R v Kennedy 1999 was wrong to state that self injection of heroin was an unlawful act. Whilst possession of the heroin was an unlawful act there was no direct causation. The jury had not been directed on the issue of causation therefore the conviction was unsafe. In any event it is likely in most cases that the freely informed decision, by an adult of sound mind to self-inject drugs, would amount to a novus actus interveniens breaking the chain of causation.
R v Rogers (2003)
Appeal was dismissed. Conviction for manslaughter was upheld.
R v Dhaliwal (2006)
Facts: The defendant had verbally abused his wife for many years. The wife committed suicide as a result of this abuse.
Held: The defendant was not guilty as he did not cause the death of his wife; whilst mental harm by way of a recognised mental condition can be classed as harm, mere emotions are not enough to qualify. The defendant’s wife did not commit suicide as an immediate and reasonable response to the verbal abuse, but acted voluntarily.
R v Evans (2009)
it was held that in cases of gross negligence manslaughter, if an individual caused or contributed to creating a life-threatening situation; a consequent duty would normally arise to take reasonable steps to save the person’s life. On the facts of this case, Evans created such a situation by providing the heroin to her half-sister and had not taken subsequent steps to negate the danger created.
R v Kennedy (no 2)(2007)
It was held that as the victim was a fully informed and consenting adult, who had freely and voluntarily self-administered the drug without any pressure from the defendant, this was an intervening act.