Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Involuntary Manslaughter - Coggle Diagram

- - - - This refers to intent of carrying out the unlawful act, not intention for the consequences of the act
    - - a criminal act (need not be serious)
        
        R v Franklin- this case changed it to only accept criminal acts, not civil
        
        R v Lamb- both the actus reus and mens rea of the criminal act must be proven
        
        R v Scarlett- if D was using reasonable force in acting in self- defence or to prevent a crime, there would be no unlawful act
      - An intrinsically unlawful act
        
        it cannot be a lawful act which becomes unlawful only because of reckless or negligent manner in which it is performed e.g. driving- Andrews v DPP
      - must be an act rather than an omission (R v Lowe)
    - - R v Church- whether or not an act is dangerous is an objective test from what the sober and reasonable person would appreciate. This means the sober and reasonable person must recognise a risk of some harm, it need not be serious harm
      - R v Dawson- must foresee physical harm rather than emotional. Shock which has physical and lasting effects on the body counts as harm though
      - R v JM & SM- the type of harm a reasonable person would foresee does not have to be the same type of harm as the one actually caused
      - R v Dawson- when deciding if the unlawful act was dangerous, you only take into account circumstances known to D at the time. From the perspective of a sober and reasonable person who knows circumstances D knows
      - R v Watson- D’s act can become dangerous if they are made aware of a fact during the act which would make it dangerous. In this case, finding out the person they were burgling was a frail, old man and continuing
      - R v Ball- the reasonable person has any special knowledge D has. In this case, judging from the reasonable man who owns guns and usually holds cartridges in his pocket, they would know the differences in weight between a full or blank. Do not take into account unreasonable mistakes made by D
    - - factual and legal causation
      - death by supplying drugs:
        
        D directly administers the drug to V e.g. taking the syringe and injecting them
        
        R v Cato (confirmed by Kennedy)- D injecting V directly means D caused the death, and it was still an unlawful act despite V consenting
        
        D merely supplies V with the drug or assists by filling the syringe and passing to V, who then administers the drug themselves
        
        If D is unaware or deceived of the drug that they have been given, the supplier may be guilty of an unlawful act
        
        R v Kennedy- if D supplies drugs or assists them with filling a syringe, then V injects themselves, as an informed adult of sound mind voluntarily, V then breaks the chain of causation, as they cause their own harm
- - - - exceptions: enemy soldiers in battle, death penalty, self defence
    - - D must cause death of V
    - - a person dies when the brain dies
      - R v Poulton- defined a living person as someone born alive and their whole body is brought into the world and can be based upon evidence of the medical men
      - R v Reeves- not necessary for umbilical cord to be cut for child to have life
      - AG-Ref No 3 of 1994- when a pregnant woman was stabbed in the abdomen and the baby was born prematurely and died, the child was not a live person when stabbed and it was not murder
    - - R v Adebolajo- under the jurisdiction of England and Wales
  - - - Direct intent is however where the consequence of is what D subjectively aimed to happen ( R v Moloney)