Involuntary Manslaughter

Where D has committed a criminal act against V...

FRANKLIN

• D pushed box into sea from pier
• hit V and V died
• held there was no invol' manslaughter as this act was not an unlawful one, it was a civil wrong

LAMB

• D accidently shot V whilst playing with a gun
• V did not fear the application of force before being shot, so the actus reus of assault was not present
• both the actus reus and the mens rea must be present for an unlawful act to be present!

OMISSIONS DO NOT COUNT!

LOWE

• D failed to feed his child
• his child died
• he was not found guilty of invol' manslaughter
• this was because he did not act - but he failed to act

CHURCH

• established the definition of a 'dangerous act' in regards to invol' manslaughter

1. a reasonable person

2. who is under no influence of substance

3. would be able to foresee

4. the given act to cause some harm

LARKIN

• D held razor to V's neck who fell onto it and died from his injuries
• D was convicted despite not intending to harm as the act was unlawful and dangerous (Church)

MITCHELL

• D pushed elderly man who fell onto V
• V died and D as charged with invol' manslaughter
• the act of battery is unlawful and dangerous (Church)

GOODFELLOW

• D set fire to his house to gain insurance money but killed his family
• charged with invol' manslaughter as this was an unlawful and dangerous (Church) act

D NEED NOT INTEND TO CAUSE HARM TO THE  HARMED VICTIM!

unlawful act = death... GUILTY!

unlawful act + intervening act = death... NOT GUILTY!

CATO

• D prepared and injected drugs for and into V
• V died from drug intake
• D found guilty of invol' manslaughter

KENNEDY

• D prepared drugs for V
• V injected them and died from drug intake
• D not guilty of invol' manslaughter as V injecting herself acted as an intervening act

THE DEFENDANT NEED NOT FORESEE THE RISK OF THE DEATH OF V...

he just needs intent or recklessness as to carry out the unlawful, dangerous (Church) act

NEWBURY & JONES

• Ds pushed stone from bridge onto railway track
• Hit a train and killed the driver
• GUILTY as they intended to push the stone - a dangerous and unlawful act
• they need not have to have foreseen the risk of the death of V

THE FOUR AREAS:

1. Duty of care

2. Which is breached

3. Gross negligence present

4. Which is the sustantial cause of death

ADOMAKO (the case for all!)

• D was an anaesthetist (DOC)
• failed to notice V's oxygen tube was detached (BODOC & GN)
• V died (SCOD)

USES THE NEIGHBOUR PRINCIPLE AS ESTABLISHED IN DONOGUE AND STEVENSON

SINGH

• landlord D did not maintain gas fire
• Vs - tenants - died

LITCHFIELD

• D - owner of ship - failed to tell crew the fuel was contaminated
• Vs died

STONE AND DOBINSON

• Ds agreed to care for sister but failed to seek medical help when she fell ill
• V died

WACKER

• D agreed to take illegal immigrants into country in a van
• this gave him a duty of care to them
• he did not open the windows of the van
• Vs died

EVANS

• D gave heroin to V who died from an overdose
• D was found to have begun a chain of events which gave her a duty to V
• She breached this duty

NEGLIGENCE -

'failure to take proper care of something'

CRIMINAL GROSS NEGLIGENCE -

1. beyond a matter of mere compensation between subjects

2. shows a disregard for life

3. deserves state punishment

THE JURY HAS DISCRETION WHEN DECIDING WHETHER OR NOT CRIMINAL GROSS NEGLIGENCE IS PRESENT!

R V MISRA; R V SRIVASTAVA

• Doctor Ds failed to recognise V had an infection
• V died
• established their criminal gross negligence was the substantial cause of V's death

SHOWS THE D'S ACT MUST RISK THE LIFE OF THE VICTIM, NOT JUST RISK THE VICTIMS HEALTH AND COMFORT!

THIS IS WHERE D HAD NO INTENT TO CAUSE ANY FORM OF INJURY, YET WAS RECKLESS AS TO DOING SO...

LIDAR

• D drove his car with V hanging out 
• V was trying to attack him
• V was dragged underneath the car and killed
• D owed a duty of care to V as any driver owes a duty of care to any road user
• D breached this duty of care
• D found GUILTY