Involuntary Manslaughter

Card Set Information

Involuntary Manslaughter
2012-05-16 10:53:10

Criminal Law flashcards
Show Answers:

  1. R v Church
    • UAM test for dangerousness= objectively dangerous
    • "unlawful act must be such as all sober and reasonable people would inevitably recognize the harm... albeit not serious harm."

    • - =/= thin skull rule
    • - apply the objectively dangerous test first

    (sober and reasonable people in church)

    (case where a man thought he killed a woman and then threw her into a river where she drowned, enough that reasonable people who have appreciated the risk of harm)
  2. R v Willoughby
    • - whether D owed V a duty of care is a question of law
    • - i.e. judge can direct a jury that a duty exists if the jury can find certain facts

    (same as R v Evans)
  3. R v White
    • Test for factual causation: but for test
    • (a white butt)
  4. R v Blaue
    • Causation
    • Novus actus interveniens
    • D must take V as he finds him

    (even if he's Blue)
  5. R v Evans
    • - whether D owed V a duty of care is a question of law
    • - i.e. judge can direct a jury that a duty exists if the jury can find certain facts

    (same as R v Willoughby)
  6. R v Watson
    If the risk of harm becomes obvious during the commission of the offence, the reasonable man will be attributed with the knowledge

    (Watsons helps normal/reasonable people when they get hurt/harmed)

    (case of burglary of an old woman's house, but in this case a reasonable person would have seen the risk of harm)

    vs. R v Dawson
  7. R v Dawson
    The reasonable man is deemed to have had the knowledge the defendant had or ought to have had at the time of the offence.

    (Dawson is the best and most reasonable uni counsellor with the best knowledge; knows what i know and ought to know)

    (attempted robbery, man died of heart attack, Ds would not have known about his heart condition--> reasonable man also wouldnt have known)

    vs. R v Watson
  8. R v Vickers
    No mens rea for murder= manslaughter
  9. R v Lamb
    Both the actus reus and mens rea element of the unlawful act must be established in UAM

    (if shearing the sheep led to its death, you need both AR and MR OF SHEARING THE SHEEP [assuming shearing a lamb is unlawful] to be guilty of lambslaughter)

    (guys playing with guns, D point gun and V but D knew V was not alarmed--> no assault)
  10. R v Franklin
    in UAM= unlawful in a sense that it must constitute a criminal offence

    (Benjamin Franklin jailed as a rebel= unlawful-->criminal offence)

    (case of a man taking someone's box and throwing it into the sea, striking a swimmer dead. criminal offence to take someone's property and throw it into the sea)
  11. DPP v Newbury & Jones
    • Definition of unlawful act manslaughter:
    • A defendant is guilty of manslaughter if it can be proved that he intentionally did an act which was unlawful and dangerous and that act caused death. It is unnecessary that the defendant had known that the act in question was unlawful or dangerous.

    (case of boys throwing stones at a train that killed a man, although they didnt foresee it would harm someone)
  12. R v Larkin
    Definition of UAM = there must be an intentional unlawful act, objectively dangerous, that causes death
  13. R v Cato
    • Causation= more than a minimal cause of V's death
    • Need not be the sole or even principle cause of death

    (Cato in Hunger Games more than a minimal cause of participants' deaths!)

    (case where D and V agreed to inject each other with heroin, sufficient that heroin injection was a cause of death)
  14. R v Cheshire
    Negligent omission of paramedic/ doctor does not break the chain of causation

    (unless the doctor behaves like cheshire cat, pure negligence not enough)
  15. R v Arobieke
    UAM= needs a a criminal act

    (case: a boy was electrocuted in a railway station while running away from a body builder [aerobics teacher whatever] who was known for sexual harrassment, but conviction squashed since Arobieke didn't commit any criminal acts)
  16. R v Adomako
    • 1) D owed V a duty of care
    • 2) D breached the duty of care
    • 3) the breach caused the death
    • 4) the omission was grossly negligent

    Ordinary principles of negligence apply to the meaning of duty of care

    • - What does gross negligence mean?
    • - Lord Mackay, "whether having regard to the risk of death involved, the conduct of the defendant was so bad in all circumstances as to amount in their judgment to a criminal act or omission."
  17. R v Lowe
    UAM = intentional and positive act, not an omission
  18. Caparo Industries plc v Dickman
    • What to determine the existence of a duty of care?
    • 1) reasonable foreseeability that V would be harmed by D's conduct
    • 2) proximity of their relationship
    • 3) whether it would be fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty
  19. R v Ball
    Once it is proven that the unlawful act was intentional, it will be determined whether the act was objectively dangerous, and would not impute to the reasonable man the defendant's mistake of fact
  20. R v Dalby