UNIT 3: INVOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTR REVISION NOTES

Involuntary manslaughter

-          Requires an unlawful killing but the defendant doesn’t have an intention for murder at all

-          Maximum sentence is life imprisonment OR a non-custodial sentence if the particular case is found suitable

Unlawful act manslaughter

-          D must have carried out an unlawful act. This is essentially a crime. It cannot be a tort, R v Franklin. It cannot be an omission, R v Khan and Khan, R v Lowe.

Dangerous?

-          The unlawful act that d carries out must be dangerous. It is dangerous according to the Church test which the jury have to be consider “might a sober and reasonable person might forsee the risk of some harm” occurring. Note that some harm remains largely ambiguous. Some harm accounts for anyone, not just the act that is aimed originally at that victim, R v Mitchell. Some harm includes harm to property and not a person, R v Goodfellow. Some harm is explicatory – it doesn’t equate to serious harm, JM & SM (bouncer who died due to dodgy artery).  But it doesn’t include fear or emotional disturbance, has to be shock or physical harm, R v Dawson. Doesn’t not matter that D did not realise there would be a risk of harm to another person also – R v Larkin. Punching was not considered dangerous r v carey coyle and foster.

-          R v Watson states that where the reasonable person would be aware of the victim’s frailty and the risk of physical harm to him, only then can certain cases can be considered dangerous. ( burglary would have been considered dangerous as soon as his condition  became apparent to the reasonable man)

Causes death?

-           Normal rules of causation – R v Kennedy, the victims informed and voluntary act breaks the chain of causation( no unlawful act by d administering a noxious substance since there was a voluntary intervening act

Mens rea?

-          That of the selected offence – most likely an intention all the time since they intended that but then it later resulted in death

-          NOTE: Not necessary for D to realise that A) his act was unlawful, and B) that that act was dangerous and could cause harm DPP v Newbury & Jones

Gross negligence

Duty of care

-          D must owe V a  duty of care. R v Adomako – civil concept partially applies. Number of cases where this comes about – Doctor and patient? (a) Omissions?, Evans?, captain and crew, Litchfield, landlord and tenant, singh? R v Khan and Khan states in their OBITER DICTA – duty could arise to summon medical assistance in certain circumstances, R v Dias – duty not to prepare and supply drugs, R v willougby – the fact the defendant and the victim were engaged in a criminal act did not prevent the defendant from owing a duty.

-           It is also irrelevant in criminal law (albeit relevant in civil) that the victims were party to an illegal act in R v Wacker

Gross?

-          Has to be a gross breach of duty. It becomes gross when it “goes beyond a mere matter of compensation” and “shows such disregard for the life and safety of others as to amount to a crime”

-          R v Adomako says  the jury need to consider if “the conduct of the defendant will be so bad in all the circumstances as to amount to a criminal act or an omission” in which the Lord Mackay states that the jury should consider “whether the extent to which the defendants conduct departed from the proper standard of care” (e.g. doctor) and it “was such that is should be judged as criminal”

Risk of death

-          Gross breach of duty has to cause a risk of death, in R v Misra – Igor LJ said  it was not enough to show that there was risk of bodily injury or injury to health

Causes death?

Factual/legal/transferred mal?