Invol manslaughter essay PDF

Preview

Summary

Criminal Law: Involuntary Manslaughter EssayRaul and Dr SmithThis scenario involves involuntary manslaughter, which is an unlawful killing where the defendant does not have intention, be it direct or oblique, to kill or to cause grievous bodily harm. This is unlike voluntary manslaughter where the d...

Description

Criminal Law: Involuntary Manslaughter Essay Raul and Dr Smith This scenario involves involuntary manslaughter, which is an unlawful killing where the defendant does not have intention, be it direct or oblique, to kill or to cause grievous bodily harm. This is unlike voluntary manslaughter where the defendant has the intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm, but the charge is reduced from murder to manslaughter because the defendant can use one of the special defences to murder. There are three ways of committing involuntary manslaughter. One way is by unlawful act (or constructive) manslaughter. This is where the defendant must do an unlawful act, as per the case of Lamb where it was held there must be an unlawful act; in this case there was no assault because the friend did not fear violence. An example of an unlawful act is arson illustrated by the case of Goodfellow, and criminal damage illustrated by Newbury and Jones. The offence has to be criminal. It was held in the case of Franklin that a civil wrong is not enough. The act must also be dangerous on an object test in accordance with case of Church; would a sober and reasonable person realize the risk of some harm? The act must cause the death, and the defendant must have the mens rea for the unlawful act. Another way of committing manslaughter is through gross negligence. It can be committed where the defendant owes the victim a duty of care but breaches that duty in a very negligent way, causing death of the victim, which can be committed by an act or an omission, neither of which has to be unlawful There must be a risk of death from the defendants conduct. This is illustrated by the case of Adomako, where the defendant was an anaesthetist who failed to notice when a patient’s oxygen-supplying tube came undone. The patient died as a result of this. Thirdly, a person can be guilty of reckless manslaughter if (he/she) recklessly causes the death of another person, as illustrated by the case of Lidar. Raul appears to have committed unlawful act manslaughter. The act must be criminal, and as he pushed Christiano this would be a battery offence. The act is also a dangerous act; the risk need only be of ‘some harm’, not serious harm as per the case of Larkin. If a sober and reasonable person realizes that the unlawful act might cause some injury, then this part of the test for unlawful act manslaughter is satisfied. Christiano could have fallen and suffered ‘some harm’. It would be up to the jury, however, to decide. Margaret was the one to be injured, however. The principle of transferred malice is relevant here. This is where the defendant can be guilty if he intended to commit a similar crime but against a different person. In this case, he intended to push Christiano, but Margaret was injured as a result. This is illustrated by the case of Latimer where the defendant aimed a blow at one person, but actually hit another. So Raul could be guilty through transferred malice of unlawful act manslaughter.

The act need not be aimed at the final victim, as illustrated by the case of Mitchell. In this case the defendant punched a man who fell in to an 89-year-old woman who was knocked over and injured, and died as a result of those injuries. The defendant was convicted of unlawful act manslaughter, he had done the unlawful act by punching the man, and it was considered dangerous as it was likely to injure another person. The act inadvertently caused the death of the woman. Raul therefore could be convicted of unlawful act manslaughter; although his act was not aimed at the final victim, Margaret died as a result. Margaret was suffering osteoporosis, and had brittle bones so the injuries obtained are more serious than could have been reasonably foreseen. However, the ‘thin-skull’ rule applies: you must take your victim as you find them. If the victim has something unusual about their physical or mental state which results in a more serious injury, the defendant is liable for the more serious crime. This is illustrated by the cause of Blaue. Raul would have to take Margaret as he found here and so would still possibly be convicted of unlawful act manslaughter. Doctor Smith’s medical negligence, however, may have broken the chain of causation. But this would be improbable as medical treatment is unlikely to break the chain of causation unless it is so independent of the defendant’s acts and ‘in itself so potent in causing death’ that the defendant’s acts are insignificant. In the case of Smith it was held that a defendant would be guilty, provided that the injury caused by them was still an ‘operating’ and ‘substantial’ cause of death. In the case of Cheshire it was held that even though treatment for injuries was ‘short of the standard expected of a competent medical practitioner,’ the defendant can still be criminally responsible for the death. The prosecution has only to prove that the defendant’s acts contributed to the death. The defendant’s act need not be the sole cause or even the main cause of death, provided that his acts contributed significantly to the death. In the case of Jordan a doctor gave antibiotics to a patient who was allergic, which resulted in death. This was held to be an intervening act which caused the death. However, Doctor Smith gave Margaret a normal dose of penicillin, unaware she is allergic to it, and this would likely not break the chain of causation. Raul potentially has committed gross negligence manslaughter. There must be an existence of a duty of care, as per Adomako. The civil principles of gross negligence manslaughter come from the case of Donoghue v Stevenson which states ‘you must take reasonable care to avoid acts and omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour’. There is a duty of care owed to Christiano and Margaret, and this has been breached; Christiano is victim of a battery. It would have to be decided if his conduct was so bad in all the circumstances as to amount to a criminal act. It would be for the jury to determine whether there was a risk of death from Raul’s actions. The risk of death was slim, Raul pushing Christiano one would perhaps expect not to result in death. It is unlikely that Raul would be convicted of reckless manslaughter.

Doctor Smith could be convicted of gross negligence manslaughter. He owed a duty of care as a doctor to Margaret, as per the case of Adomako. This duty of care appears to have been breached; perhaps Doctor Smith should have researched the patient to find out whether or not she was allergic to penicillin. It would ultimately be up to the jury to decide whether Doctor Smith was guilty of gross negligence manslaughter; as a doctor he should know there is a potential risk of death from allergic reaction when giving penicillin to a patient. It would be very unlikely that this would result in a conviction....