Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Manslaughter - Coggle Diagram

- - - - A) Murder of 2 or more persons, where each murder involves any of the following:
        
        (i) substantial degree of premeditation or planning,
        
        (ii) the abduction of the victim; or
        
        (iii) sexual / sadistic conduct
      - (B):
        
        The murder of a child if involving the abduction of the child / sexual sadistic motivation
      - (C):
        
        A murder done for purposes of advancing political / religious / ideological causes
      - (D):
        
        A murder by an offender previously convicted of murder
- - - - R v Lamb (1967):
        
        2 boys (C and D) were playing with a gun, there were 2 bullets in the chamber but neither were opposite the barrel. C and C thought that it wouldn't fire. D pointed the gun at C and fired. As D pulled the trigger the chamber turned and killed C
        
        Held: No unlawful act as no assault was committed and C did not believe the gun will go off = did not apprehend immediate unlawful personal violence
      - R v Newbury (1977):
        
        Ds (teenage boys) threw a piece of paving stone from a railway bridge onto a train that was passing beneath them and it killed a guard who was sitting in the driver's compartment.
        
        Held: per Lord Salmon - "an intention to do the acts will constitute a crime"
        
        Lord Edmund-Davis - "intentional committing of an unlawful act"
      - MENS REA Test per AG's Reference (No.3 of 1994):
        
        For manslaughter to be an unlawful act, MR must be proven to be:
        
        intention to do an unlawful act;
        
        that a reasonable person will recognise as dangerous
        
        Lord Hope - "all that needs to be proved is that he intentionally did what he did
        
        ACTUS REUS per R v Lowe (1973):
        
        The death must be caused by an act
        
        There must be difference between omission and commission
        
        neglecting to do something is not grounds for constructive manslaughter even if omission is deliberate
    - - R v Church (1966):
        
        Facts: C and D were in a van to have sex, D couldn't satisfy C and she became angry and slapped D. During the fight C was knocked unconcious. D thought C was dead, panicked and dumped C in a river. C drowned.
        
        Held: CA held that act was dangerous if it was: "all sober and reasonable people will inevitably recognise the risk of harm resulting from it.
    - - R v Johnstone (2007):
        
        Facts: C was playing cricket with his son and was approached by bullies (D) and was shouting abuse + throwing rocks and one of it hit C's head. Shortly after C collapsed and died of a heart attack.
        
        Held: CA held that insults and spitting cannot be considered unlawful + dangerous. = group of D's not guilty
        
        The jury also couldn't decide whether the heart attack is caused by the spitting and shouting / throwing rocks
        
        Medical evidence deduced that C's death is caused by abnormal heart rhythm by being suddenly/unexpectedly attacked
        
        R v Kennedy (No.2) (2007):
        
        Facts: C asked D for something to make him sleep, D prepared a syringe with heroin and passed to C. C paid C, injected himself and died within an hour. D convicted of manslaughter and argued that C caused himself the death and not D.
        
        Held: HoL held that its not considered manslaughter if an individual knew of the risk (the nature of the drug). A drug dealer will only be liable if:
        
        the user is young/not fully informed of the nature of the drug
        
        [Intervening voluntary conduct of an informed adult victim with sound mind breaks the chain of causation]
    - - R v Adomako (1995):
        
        CA - Ingredients that needs to be proved:
        
        Is there DOC
        
        Is there breach of DOC by D causing C's death; and
        
        Gross negligence where jury considered justified for criminal conviction
        
        Usual principles of negligence (reasonable foreseeability)
        
        Is there DOC?
        
        To decide whether D has breached DOC towards victim and died
        
        Neighbour principle per Donoghue v Stevenson (1932): must take reasonable care to avoid acts you can reasonably foresee will likely injure your neighbour
        
        Issue of public policy - R v Wacker (2003):
        
        Ex turpi causa non oritur actio:
        
        Law of negligence won't recognise relationship between those involved in criminal enterprise as giving rise to DOC owed to 1 participant = not applicable
        
        Breach of DOC?
        
        D's conduct must breach DOC to victim
        
        D's conduct falls below the standard expected of a reasonable person
        
        Gross negligence
        
        per Cashill v Wright: "greater negligence than the absence of such ordinary care, such a degree of negligence excludes the loosest degree of care
        
        The negligence must show "such disregard for the life" and safety of others as to amount to crimes against the State"
        
        Gross Negligence test - Prentice (1993):
        
        Grossly negligent to the point of criminality having regard to all the excuses and mitigating circumstances in the case
- - - - The 3 key questions:
        
        The evidential question
        
        Subjective question
        
        Objective question
        
        The loss of control defence has 3 components in S54(1)(a)(b) and (c) Coroners Justice Act 2009)
        
        Objective Question - S53(1)(c):
        
        would a person of D's sex and age with a normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint and in circumstances of D, might've reacted the same way as D
        
        DPP v Camplin (1978):
        
        The reasonable man:
        
        is a person having the power of self-control to be expected of an ordinary person of the sex and age of the accused,
        
        but in other aspects like sharing the accused's characteristics as the jury think would affect the gravity of the provocation to him
        
        Subjective Question (qualifying trigger) - S55(3):
        
        Qualifying trigger (1) - S55(3):
        
        If D's loss of self-control was attributable to D's fear of serious violence from C against D or another identified person
        
        Qualifying trigger (2) - S55(4):
        
        If D's loss of self-control was attributable to thing/things done / said (or both) that
        
        (a) constituted circumstances of an extremely grave character, and
        
        (b) caused D to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged
        
        Qualifying trigger (3) - S55(5):
        
        If D's loss of self-control was attributable to a combination of matter mentioned in subsection (3) and (4)
        
        Thornton (No.2)(1996):
        
        A jury may more readily find there was a sudden loss of control triggered by even a minor event if D has endured over a period on the 'last straw basis'
        
        The evidential question - Burden of Proof - S54(5):
        
        On prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that his defence is not satisfied
        
        Ibrams v Gregory (1982):
        
        Held: No provocation where:
        
        there has been a delay of several days before the fatal attack on the victim; and
        
        the attack has been planned in advance and carried out in accordance to plan
        
        there was no evidence of self-control