Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
INVOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER - Coggle Diagram
INVOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER
Unlawful act (constructive) manslaughter
D lacks MR for murder but kills someone in the course of committing an unlawful (criminal ) act
:female-judge::skin-tone-2:
DPP v Newbury & Jones [1977]
D's pushed concrete slab off bridge onto train - killed guard
To be G of invol M/S...pros must prove:
D
intentionally
(voluntarily) did an act
That act was
unlawful
The unlawful act was
dangerous
and
The unlawful act
caused
the death of the victim
:arrow_right:
D's act was
intentional
D voluntarily carried out an act which results in the death
:arrow_right:
D's act was
unlawful
Unlawful act must be a criminal act
Both the AR and MR of the criminal act must be proven (eg :female-judge::skin-tone-2:
Lamb [1967]
- boy pointed loaded firearm at another; no intention of committing an assault; no unlawful act)
Need not be serious - can simply be a common assault
Act must be intrinsically unlawful (eg can't be driving (lawful) without due care and attention) :female-judge::skin-tone-2:
Andrews v DPP
Must be act rather than omission :female-judge::skin-tone-2:
Lowe
- failure to do something = gross neg m/s
:arrow_right:
D's unlawful act must be
dangerous
:female-judge::skin-tone-2:
R v Church [1966]
'such as all sober and reasonable people would inevitably recognise must subject the other person to, at least, the risk of some harm resulting...albeit not serious harm'
objective test - depends on what the sober & r'able person would appreciate
:female-judge::skin-tone-2:
Dawson [1985]
- harm
could
include shock produced by fright
:female-judge::skin-tone-2:
JM & SM [2012]
- type of harm r/able person would have foreseen does not have to be that actually caused
:female-judge::skin-tone-2:
Dawson [1985]
- the 'r'able person' will have knowledge of the circs they would have had, if they had been in the accused's shoes at the time of the offence
:female-judge::skin-tone-2:
Watson [1989]
- the 'sober & r'able person' has any special knowledge the D has or ought to have known
:female-judge::skin-tone-2:
Ball [1989]
- Being reasonable, they do not make any unreasonable mistakes made by the defendant
:arrow_right:
Unlawful act
caused
the death
Normal causation rules apply
Act must have factually and legally caused the death
Causing death by supplying drugs
Distinguish between...
Directly administering - :female-judge::skin-tone-2:
Cato [1976]
Supplying V or assisting V (eg filling syringe) - :female-judge::skin-tone-2:
Kennedy [2007]
- K supplied dose of heroin in syringe - handed to V (a fully informed and responsible adult) who 'freely and voluntarily self-administered' and suffered adverse reaction - D = NG
Gross negligence
manslaughter
No requirement that D was involved in a criminal act
Pros must show that D has breached a duty of care to V
Can be via a positive act or an omission, so bad that it necessitates a criminal charge
:female-judge::skin-tone-2:Key cases
R v Bateman [1925]
Andrews v DPP [1937]
- degree of negligence is close to reckless but not completely the same - may be cases where the accused appreciated the risk and intended to avoid it, yet still showed such a high degree of negligence to justify a conviction
Adomako [1995]
confirmed correct test was gross negligence, not recklessness. Laid down basic requirements :arrow_upper_right:
Requirements for GNM
from
Adomako
:arrow_forward: Existence of a duty of care
:arrow_forward: Breach of that duty
:arrow_forward: Breach causes death
:arrow_forward: There was a risk of death
:arrow_forward: Breach of duty was so bad as to amount to 'gross neg'
:arrow_forward::
Duty of care
Same meaning as in tort (though - can have duty in crim even though would avoid liability in tort)
D will owe duty towards anyone where harm caused by their acts was foreseeable
Settled law - general duty to take care to avoid injury the another by a positive act
Liability can also arise for an omission where: D under a specific duty to act; special rel'ship between D & V
:female-judge::skin-tone-2: Key cases:
Singh [1999]
- maintenance man for property had duty of care towards tenants
Ruffell [2003]
- D supplied drugs; took various steps to help then left V outside; there was a d.o.c. - either assumption of d.o.c or creation of dangerous situation
Wacker [2003]
- 58 illegal immigrants suffocated in lorry. Didn't matter that they were 'parties to criminal enterprise'
:arrow_forward::
Breach of duty of care
Ordinary principles of negligence apply
Did D's acts fall below the standard expected of a reasonable person?
R'able person will be attributed with any special skill used by the defendant. eg in :female-judge::skin-tone-2:
Adomako
- r'able anaesthetist
:arrow_forward::
Breach caused V's death
Normal causation principles apply
:arrow_forward::
There was a risk of death
:female-judge::skin-tone-2:
Misra & Srivastava
[2005]
There must be an obvious and serious risk, not merely of injury or even serious injury, but of death
(not all of the case law totally clear on 'obvious & serious risk of death' but overall does seem to be the test)
:female-judge::skin-tone-2:
Rose [2017]
- optometrist case - CA held that a mere possibility that an assessment might reveal something life-threatening was not the same as an obvious risk of death. An obvious risj was a present risk that was clear and unambiguous - not one which might become apparent on further investigation.
:arrow_forward::
The breach was sufficiently serious to constitute gross neg.
Judges have struggled re how to direct juries to differentiate between negligence causing death justifying a successful civil action for compensation and negligence which is serious enough to justify a M/S conviction.
in :female-judge::skin-tone-2:
Adomako
the HL acknowledged the infinite variety of circs in which issue may arise
:female-judge::skin-tone-2: Litchfield [1998] - captain of schooner
:female-judge::skin-tone-2: Adomako [1995] - anaesthetist
:female-judge::skin-tone-2: Bateman [1925] - negligence must show such disregard for life and safety of others...
:female-judge::skin-tone-2: AG's Ref (No 2 of 1999) [2000] - crt does not require ev of any particular state of mind
:female-judge::skin-tone-2: Misra & Srivastava [2005] - D's = 2 doctors responsible for V's post-operative care - catalogue of errors
:female-judge::skin-tone-2: Singh [1999] - carbon monoxide poisoning
:female-judge::skin-tone-2: Prentice [1993], Sullman [1994] - cases heard with Adomako in CA. D's were junior doctors - mistakes by D's were in part brought about by failures of others including more senior doctors - not gross neg