INVOLUNTARY MS 

HideShow resource information
View mindmap
  • INVOLUNTARY MS
    • UNLAWFUL ACT MS
      • 1) D MUST DO UNLAWFUL ACT
        • Must be an ACT = Unlawful
        • NOT Omission
          • Khan v Khan
            • Omission to get help wasn't unlawful act.
        • Franklin 1883
          • HELD: Civil wrong NOT enough create liability for unlawful act MS
        • Larkin 1943
          • HELD: D Committed Assault - Dangerous because likely injure someone - Guilty MS
        • NOT a Civil Wrong
      • 2) ACT MUST BE DANGEROUS ON OBJECTIVE TEST
        • CHURCH Test 1965
          • Unlawful act must be such that a SOBER + REASONABLE person would inevitably recognize AND must subject the other person to do, at least, the risk of some harm resulting therefrom, albeit not serious harm.
        • Unlawful act needn't be aimed at V (TRANSFERRED MALICE)
          • Mitchell 1983
            • D punched man whom fell into V (86 old women) + caused her to fall. She died from Injuries. TM
        • Act needn't be aimed at a person.
          • Goodfellow 1986
            • Fire out of control + caused death. CA said ALL elements UAMS present - Guilty
        • Dawson
          • Judge direct Jury - 'Harm' meant either 'Emotional or Physical disturbance'.
          • COA HELD: 'Emotional disturbance' on its own not enough to amount to harm
        • Watson
          • Act of Burglary = dangerous as soon as old man's condition would become apparent to the reasonable man.
      • 3) UNLAWFUL ACT MUST CAUSE DEATH
        • Normal rules of causation apply.
        • If intervening act breaks chain causation then D CANNOT be guilty unlawful act MS
        • Cato 1976
          • By injecting V - D committed unlawful act. Injection caused death = D liable MS
      • 4) MENS REA
        • MR required is that required for an unlawful act.
          • Not necessary to show any intention to kill (or foresight death may occur)
        • Le Brun 1991
          • CA HELD: Even though original punch DIDN'T cause death. The act of punching + the act that caused her death were part of "the same sequence of events". The fact that original punch was intentional was enough.
    • GROSS NEGLIGENCE MS
      • Adomako 1995
        • The elements of gross negligence MS were RESTATED in this case.
      • CAN be an act AND omission
      • AR - Death arising from grossly negligent act of D.
      • MR - Gross negligence of D
      • ELEMENTS
        • 1) DUTY OF CARE
          • Donoghue V Stevenson 1932
            • STATED: Duty of Care owned to - " persons who are so closely + directly effected by my act that I ought reasonably have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to acts or omissions that are called into question"
          • Stone V Dobinson 1977
            • D's voluntary undertook duty + breached it.
          • Singh 1999
            • Court recognized - duty of care for landlord to manage and maintain his property
          • Khan V Khan 1998
            • Could be duty to summon medical assistance in some circumstances.
          • Willoughby 2005
            • CA confirmed: D + V were engaged in criminal act (burning down D's building) didn't prevent D owing V duty of care
        • 2) BREACH OF DUTY BY GROSS NEGLIGENCE
          • A) Lord Mackay (In Adomako) - approved the Bateman test (1925)
            • Stated that negligence is gross: "Whether the conduct of the D was so bad in all the circumstances as to amount to a criminal act or omission"
          • B) Jury should decide whether risk of death involved the conduct of D being so bad that it should to amount to a criminal act/omission.
          • C) Jury must consider seriousness of the breach of duty in all circumstances where D was placed at the time.
          • Negligence MUST be Gross
        • 3) GROSS NEGLIGENCE MUST BE SUBSTANTIAL CAUSE OF DEATH
          • Apply rules of Causation
        • 4) RISK OF DEATH
          • Misra & Srivastava 2004
            • Confirmed that according to ADOMAKO there must be a risk of death.
        • 5) MENS REA
          • D's Behaviour judged by:
            • Standards of reasonable man, and therefore an objective standard
              • Therefore:
                • D's state of mind not relevant
                  • Confirmed: A-G Ref No.2 1999
          • Stone and Dobinson
            • Convicted MS of first appellant's sister, Fanny. D's were reckless as to the "health + welfare" of the Sister who died.
          • Edwards (2001)
            • Parents (D's) allowed 7 year old daughter + friend play on railway + promised warn them if train approached. Children killed by train not seen by D's. - GNM - convicted by Jury.

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Manslaughter resources »