Involuntary manslaughter Flashcards Preview

Law - Criminal Law > Involuntary manslaughter > Flashcards

Flashcards in Involuntary manslaughter Deck (44)
Loading flashcards...
1
Q

What is unlawful act manslaughter also known as?

A

Constructive manslaughter.

2
Q

Is the defendant liable even if they did not realise that death or injury might occur?

A

Yes.

3
Q

Is a civil wrong enough?

A

No, it must be a criminal act.

4
Q

Give the facts of Franklin (1883)?

A

The defendant threw a large box into the sea which hit and killed a swimmer.

5
Q

Is an omission sufficient for unlawful act manslaughter?

A

No, there must be an act.

6
Q

Which case was it decided in that there must be an act?

A

Lowe (1973).

7
Q

On which test must the unlawful act be dangerous on?

A

An objective test.

8
Q

What was stated in the case of Church (1966)?

A

There only needs to be a risk of some harm.

9
Q

A risk of what type of harm is sufficient?

A

Physical.

10
Q

If a reasonable person would be aware of the victim’s frailty, will the defendant be liable?

A

Yes.

11
Q

Give the facts of Watson (1989).

A

The defendants threw a brick through a window of a house and entered, they beat up the 87-year-old occupier and left him. The man died of a heart attack 90 minutes later.

12
Q

Does the dangerous or unlawful act need to be aimed at the victim?

A

No.

13
Q

Give the facts of Larkin (1943).

A

D threatened another man with a cut-throat razor, a woman tried to intervene but because she was drunk she fell onto the open blade which killed her.

14
Q

Can the unlawful act be aimed at property?

A

Yes.

15
Q

Give the facts of Goodfellow (1986).

A

The defendant set fire to his council house so the authorities would move him to a bigger house. His wife, son and another woman died in the fire.

16
Q

Which area has the concept of intervening acts and causation caused problems in?

A

Where the defendant supplies the victim with drugs.

17
Q

In Cato (1976), the defendant injected the drugs, was the chain of causation broken?

A

No.

18
Q

In which case was it held that the chain of causation was broken because the defendant did not inject the victim?

A

Dalby (1982).

19
Q

What did the House of Lords say in Kennedy (2007)?

A

There is no unlawful act of the defendant in supplying the drugs.

20
Q

What did the House of Lords accept with regards to drug injection?

A

There could be situations where the defendant and victim were jointly involved in administration.

21
Q

Why is it difficult to see how this is possible?

A

In the case of Roberts (2003) the defendant held a tourniquet around the victim’s arm in order to assist injection, but the House of Lords stated that this was not an unlawful act and the chain of causation had been broken.

22
Q

How could a defendant be liable when supplying drugs?

A

They could be convicted of gross negligence manslaughter if there is a duty not to supply and prepare drugs.

23
Q

What must be proved with regards to mens rea?

A

The defendant must have the mens rea for the unlawful act.

24
Q

What does not have to be proved?

A

It is not necessary for the defendant to realise the act was unlawful or dangerous.

25
Q

When is gross negligence manslaughter committed?

A

When the defendant owes the victim a duty of care, which he breaches negligently causing death.

26
Q

How can gross negligence manslaughter be committed?

A

By an act or omission.

27
Q

What is the leading case on gross negligence manslaughter and what were the facts of it?

A

Adomako (1994) - the defendant was an anaesthetist, during the operation one of the tubes supplying oxygen to the patient became dislodged and the defendant failed to notice until the patient suffered a heart attack ad died six months later.

28
Q

What is the test for negligence?

A

Having regard to the risk of death involved, the conduct of the defendant was so bad in all the circumstances as to amount, in the jury’s judgement, to criminal act or omission.

29
Q

What do the cases of Singh (1999) and Litchfield (1998) demonstrate?

A

A contractual duty of care.

30
Q

What happened in the case of Singh (1999)?

A

D was the landlord of the property in which a faulty gas fire caused the deaths of the tenants.

31
Q

What does the case of Khan and Khan (1998) mean?

A

The law can expand to create new situations where a duty of care exists.

32
Q

What is significant about the case of Wacker (2002) and what happened?

A

The defendant agreed to bring 60 illegal immigrants into England in the back of his lorry, but they all died.
This shows how the law expanded to new situations after the case of Khan and Khan (1998).

33
Q

Where else can a duty of care exist?

A

Where the defendant creates a state of affairs which they know or ought reasonably to have known would threatened the life of the victim.

34
Q

What does the case of Evans (2009) demonstrate?

A

Where the defendant created a state of affairs that they knew or ought reasonably to have known was threatening to the life of the victim.

35
Q

When a duty of care has been established, what must next be proved?

A

The defendant breached the duty and that this breach caused death.

36
Q

What must not happen for the defendant to be convicted?

A

There must not be any intervening acts that break the chain of causation.

37
Q

What must the negligence be?

A

Gross.

38
Q

What is the test for if the negligence was gross?

A

Negligence is gross if it involves a consideration of the risk of death to the victim.

39
Q

Which case was the test for gross negligence resolved in?

A

Misra and another (2004).

40
Q

Give the facts of Misra and another (2004).

A

The victim had an operation on his knee, and the defendants who were doctors failed to treat the victim for an infection, and the victim died.

41
Q

Which case demonstrates reckless manslaughter?

A

Lidar (2000).

42
Q

What is reckless manslaughter?

A

Where he/she is aware of and consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that death will result from his/her conduct.

43
Q

Give three criticisms of the law on involuntary manslaughter.

A
  1. The offence of unlawful act manslaughter covers a wide range of conduct.
  2. Death may be an unexpected result, and if it is unexpected, the defendant will be labelled the same as someone who did expect death.
  3. A defendant who did not realise the risk of death is still guilty as there is a subjective test.
44
Q

Suggest reform for the law on involuntary manslaughter.

A

Sub-division of unlawful act manslaughter, in order to lessen the range of acts that can commit one offence.