INVOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER mindmap LAW 03
- Created by: abic1
- Created on: 26-02-18 23:09
View mindmap
- INVOL. MANS.
- Unlawful Dangerous Act Manslaughter (UDAM)
- Actus Reus: An unlawful act, that was dangerous, causing death
- Unlawful Act
- The act itself must be criminal FRANKLIN 1883
- Unlawful acts include assault, battery, criminal damage, arson
- If an assault or battery is established, no valid defence that defendant did now want to injure victim LARKIN
- No unlawful act = no unlawful dangerous act manslaughter AROBIEKE
- That was Dangerous
- Objective test, would reasonable man see risk of physical harm from defendant's actions CHURCH
- Defendant does not have to know act was unlawful NEWBURY & JONES
- Reasonable man only knows as much as defendant did at time of killing DAWSON
- Act can be committed indirectly
- Even if death is partly due to medical condition, defendant will still be guilty LYNCH
- Causing Death
- Must be a significant cause
- Any intervening act must be significantly independent of defendant's act to break chain
- Only needs to make a substantial contribution SHOHID
- No fresh intervening cause between act and death GOODFELLOW
- Unlawful Act
- Mens Rea: the mens rea for the unlawful act committed
- Only mens rea required is for the unlawful act LARKIN
- Defendant does not have to foresee any harm at all NEWBURY v JONES
- Transferred malice MITCHELL
- Drugs
- Victim themselves break chain if they self inject DALBY
- Supplier of drugs is not guilty KENNEDY
- If defendant injects victim, they are guilty CATO
- Self injection breaks chain, defendant is not guilty DIAS
- Series of Unlawful Acts
- If original act was intentional, guilty if death caused by sequence of events LE BRRUN
- Actus Reus: An unlawful act, that was dangerous, causing death
- Gross Negligent Manslaughter (GNM)
- When a person dies due to the negligence of the defendant
- Actus Reus: Death resulting from a negligent act
- Mens Rea: Defendant's grossly negligent behaviour
- Unlawful act or omission done so badly it results in death
- Jury decides if negligence is bad enough to be criminal
- ADOMAKO 1995
- Existence of a Duty of Care
- Owe a duty of care to neighbours DONGHUE v STEVENSON
- Neighbour = anybody likely to be affected by acts of omissions
- Owe a duty of care to others in criminal enterprise WILLOUGHBY
- If create state of affairs they know are life threatening have duty of care EVANS
- Voluntary intervention creates duty of care if there is prior friendship, control over environment, or some prior involvement EVANS
- Breach of that Duty
- Caused by act or omission
- Statutory omission ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1988
- Duty under contract to act ADOMAKO
- Family relationship GIBBINS v PROCTOR
- Voluntary assumed responsibility STONE & DOBINSON
- Status or position DYTHAM
- Dangerous situation caused and failed to be put right MILLER
- Judged by standard of reasonable person performing activity involved HOLLOWAY
- Reasonable man must see risk of death from breach LITCHFIELD
- Causing Death
- Factual and legal cause
- If caused by omission, use MISRA
- Prosecution must prove it highly probable that if defendant had done something, victim would have survived MISRA
- If chain of causation is broken, both parties can still be implicated
- Which must be serious enough for the jury to consider it to be grossly negligent
- Objective test decided by the jury FINLAY
- Beyond a matter of mere compensation BATEMAN
- 2 part test to decide if grossly negligent
- Conduct must be so bad to amount to criminal act or omission ADOMAKO
- Reasonable man must see risk of death from act or omission MISRA
- Existence of a Duty of Care
- Where a killing takes place but there is no mens rea for murder
- Unlawful Dangerous Act Manslaughter (UDAM)
Similar Law resources:
Teacher recommended
Comments
No comments have yet been made