Invol. M/S

avatar
Created by
Samuel Worley

Cards (12)

  • What is involuntary manslaughter?
    The unlawful killing without the mens rea for murder.
    Different from Vol. M/S which has the MR to kill or cause GBH + has partial defence of D.R. + L.o.C.
    With involuntary manslaughter, the accused will not have intended to kill or cause GBH.
    Max. sentence - life imprisonment BUT discretionary
  • The two types of involuntary manslaughter:
    1. Unlawful Act Manslaughter - where D has committed an unlawful and dangerous act and from that act a death has resulted.
    2. Gross Negligence Manslaughter - where D has been so grossly negligent that someone has died.
  • Unlawful Act Manslaughter - AR:
    1. D must have committed an unlawful act - a crime, with MR.
    2. The unlawful act must be a dangerous one on an objective test.
    3. The act must have caused the death.
  • Unlawful Act Manslaughter - MR
    1. Mens rea for the crime.
    Does not need to realise the act is unlawful or dangerous (DPP v Newbury and Jones).
  • UAM - 1) There must be an unlawful act committed
    Must be an act - omission not enough.
    Wilful neglect is a failure to act - (R v Lowe)
    Failure to seek help in a situation - not guilty of UAM - (Khan and Khan)
    The unlawful act MUST HAVE BEEN A CRIME.
  • UAM - 2) The act must be a dangerous one
    Objective test - must be an act that a sober and reasonable man would regard as dangerous (Church).
    Does not matter that D did not realise the risk that his act may cause some harm.
    'Some harm' = need not be serious harm, if reasonable and sober person realises act may cause some injury then that is sufficient.
    Does not matter if D did not realise this (R v Larkin).
    Act need not be aimed at V or any person providing that some harm was realised.
    No need for particular type of harm to be foreseen by sober+reasonable person.
  • UAM - 3) Act must have caused the death

    Unlawful act must have caused death - or made significant contribution.
    Intervening acts - if there is an act which break chain then D cannot be liable for M/S.
    Key cases revolving supplying drugs:
    (Cato) = D guilty of UAM as they administered the heroin into V.
    (Dalby) = D's conviction of UAM quashed - V injected self - broke chain.
    (R v Kennedy) = Confirmed Dalby decision - D only guilty if they were involved in administration of the injection.
  • Gross Negligent Manslaughter - AR
    1. D owes V a duty of care.
    2. D breaches that duty.
    3. In a grossly negligent way as to the risk of death.
    4. This causes death.
    Can be caused by an act or omission and neither needs to be unlawful.
  • Gross Negligent Manslaughter - MR
    Judges for behaviour rather than state of mind. Must be an objective risk of death, it doesn't matter if the D foresaw the risk or not.
  • GNM - 1) D owes V a Duty of Care
    Case examples:
    R v Edwards - Parents allowed kids to play on railway - kids died.
    R v Singh - Landlord + faulty gas fire led to death of tenants.
    R v Wacker - EXTENSION OF DUTY - D brought 60 illegal immigrants into England by lorry - vent was closed for crossing - 58 died.
  • GNM - 2) Breach of Duty
    (R v Adomako) - ordinary principles of law of negligence - factual matter for jury to decide.
  • GNM - 3) Grossly negligent as to risk of death
    MUST BE AN OBVIOUS RISK OF DEATH FOR IT TO BE GROSSLY NEGLIGENT AS TO DEATH (R v Adomako)
    • (R v Bateman) - D was a doctor. Visited V (pregnant) at home. Part of her uterus came away. D did not send V to hospital for 5 days - V died. D not G.N. - followed normal procedures of any competent doctor.
    • (R v Misra and Srivastrava) - V had operation. 2 SENIOR doctors reponsible for post-op care. Failed to idenity and treat infection and V then died.