Involuntary Manslaughter
- Created by: lauren1223
- Created on: 13-03-17 18:23
Involuntary Manslaughter
This is the unlawful killing where D does not have the intention to kill or cause GBH
Maximum sentence- Life imprisonment, judge has discretion to impose sentence suitable
Three ways of commiting IVMS:
-Unlawful Act MS (Constructive MS)
-GNMS
-Subjective reckless MS
Unlawful Act MS
Elements:
-D must do an unlawful, criminal act
-Act must be dangerous on an objective test
-The act must cause the death
-D must have the required mens rea for the unlawful, criminal act
Unlawful Act
A civil wrong (tort) is enough to create liability for UAMS- Franklin
There must be an unlawful criminal act- Lamb
An omission is not enough to create liabiliy for UAMS- Khan and Khan
Dangerous Act
Unlawful act must be dangerous on an objective test:
Church- 'such as all sober and reasonable people would inevitably recognise must subject the other person to, at least, the risk of some harm resulting therefrom, albeit not serious harm'
Larkin- illustrates both the need for an unlawful act and for there to be, on an objective viewpoit, the risk of some harm- Humphries J: 'Where the act which a person is engaged in performing is unlawful, then, if at the same time it is a dangerous act, that is, an act which is likely to injure another person, and quite inadvertently he causes the death of that other person by that act, then he is guilty of MS'
The act need not be aimed at the victim- Mitchell
It is not necessary for the sober and reasonable person to foresee the particular type of harm V suffers, its enough that they would foresee some harm- JM and SM
The act need not be aimed at a person, it can be aimed at property, provided it is 'such as all sober and reasonable people would inevitably recognise must subject the other person to, at least, the risk of some harm'- Goodfellow
Dangerous Act cont.
Burglary is an unlawful act whihc is not normally dangerous under the Church definition with a risk of some harm resulting therefrom. However, it may be carried out in such a way that the circumstances of the commission of the offence make it dangerous- Bristow, Dunn and Delay
The risk of harm includes causing a person to suffer shock. However, mere 'emotional disturbance' is not sufficient- Dawson
Where a reasonable person would be aware of V's frailty and the risk of physical harm to him, then D will be liable- Watson
Causing the death
The unlawful act must cause the death.
The rules on causation are the same as for murder
It is important that if there is an intervening act that breaks the chain of causation then D cannot be liable for MS
This has caused problems where D has supplied V with an illegal drug. If D injects V witht the drug, then there is no break in the chain of causation- Cato
Dalby- Even though D had supplied the drug, this was not the unlawful act which had caused the death and the injection was a voluntary act by the victim, which therefore broke the chain
Kennedy- HoL ruled that there was no unlawful act by D under s23 OAPA 1861. D did not administer the noxious substance by filling the syringe and handing it to V. The act of self-injection was a voluntary intervening act which broke the chain of causation
Rodgers- There can be situations in which V and D were both involved in the administering of injection, however on appeal in this case, it was found that there was no ULA of helping V inject by providing a tourniquet
Mens Rea for UAMS
Must be proved D had MR for unlawful act, e.g commited assault- must have intention or reckless as to causing V to fear immediate unlawful personal violence
It is not necessary for D to realise that the act is unlawful or dangerous- Newbury and Jones
GNMS
Adomako- Leading case, and gives us the test:
-existence of duty of care towards the victim
-breach of that duty which causes death
-gross negligence which the jury considers to be criminal
-gross negligence was a substancial cause of the death of the victim
Duty of care
D must owe V a duty of care- Adomako
The civil concept of negligence applies- Adomako
An omission can amount to GNMS- Stone and Dobinson
Donoghue v Stevenson- 'You must take reasonable care to avoid acts and omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour... (neighbour means) persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that i ought reasonably to have them in my contemplation'
GNMS covers a wide range of situations:
Singh- the courts recogised a duty to manage and maintain property where a faulty gas fire cause the death of tennants
Litchfield- held the owner and master of a sailing ship owed a duty to the crew when he sailed knowing that the engines might fail because of the contamination of the fuel
Duty of care cont.
Khan and Khan- there can be a duty to summon medical assistance in certain situations
Dias- CoA suggested that it might be possible to establish a duty not to supply and prepare drugs
Wacker- Led to the death of 58 immigrants. Trail judge expressed the duty of care owed to V's as being under the ordinary principles of the law of negligence, which applied to ascertain whether or not D had been in breach of his duty towards the V's who died; it was irrelevant that the V's were parties to an illegal act (unlike in civil). CoA said that determining the extent of D's duty was a simple matter of facts. D knew safety of immigrants depended on his actions
Willoughby- CoA confirmed that D and V being engaged in criminal activity does not prevent D owing V a duty of care
Evans- Duty of care can occur where D has created a state of affairs which he knows or reasonable ought to know has become life threatening
Gross Negligence
The neligience has to be 'gross'
Bateman- negligence is gross when it 'showed such disregard for the life and safety of others'
Adomako- HoL approved this test and stressed that it was a matter for the jury. Jury had to decide whether, having regard to the risk of death involved, the conduct of D was so bad in all the circumstances as to amount, in their judgement, to a criminal act or omission. 'it must have done a risk of death to the patient, was such that it should be judged as criminal'
Risk of death
Adomako- Lord Mackay specifically mentioned a 'risk of death' on two occasions in his judgement
Misra- Proved that there needs to be a 'risk of death'
Subjective Recklessness
After decision in Adomako, it was thought that SRMS no longer existed.
However, in Lidar the CoA upheld the defendant's conviction for manslaughter even though the judge referred to recklessness (rather than gross negligence) in his directions to the jury.
However, it was obvious from the facts that D could have been convicted on the basis of GNMS. In view of this, it is difficult to see why it is necessary to have seperate category of recklessness manslaughter.
Related discussions on The Student Room
- Regarding a level law »
- Does anyone have Law a level essay writing techniques?? »
- OCR law 2023 »
- Shouldn't Euthanasia be made freely available to all sick old people now? because »
- AQA A Level Law Paper 1 26th May 2023 »
- law irac method help »
- involuntary manslaughter a level law »
- Sentencing Council to make changes for pregnant women / new mothers »
- The International city cooperation clusters »
- OCR A-level Law Paper 1 (H418/01) - 26th May 2023 [Exam Chat] »
Comments
No comments have yet been made