Manslaughter - Lecture 4,5 PDF

Preview

Summary

Homicide - Manslaughter 2012An unlawful homicide is committed without the mens rea for murder is involuntary manslaughter. There are three types of involuntary manslaughter; unlawful act manslaughter, gross negligence manslaughter, and reckless manslaughter. Defined in very general terms, the mens r...

Description

Homicide - Manslaughter 2012 An unlawful homicide is committed without the mens rea for murder is involuntary manslaughter. There are three types of involuntary manslaughter; unlawful act manslaughter, gross negligence manslaughter, and reckless manslaughter. Defined in very general terms, the mens rea of manslaughter is anything other than an intention to kill or cause GBH. More specifically the state of mind that amounts to the mens rea of manslaughter are: 1. Intending to do an unlawful act which a reasonable person would realise is likely to cause immediate bodily harm, however slight – Unlawful Act (Constructive) Manslaughter 2. Mistaken belief that there is no risk of injury when the reasonable person would realise there is a very high risk of death/ GBH - Gross Negligence Manslaughter 3. Realising the risk, however slight, of bodily harm and deliberately running that risk – Reckless Manslaughter It covers a wide range of circumstances and the maximum sentence for involuntary manslaughter is life imprisonment but the judge has the discretion and may even pass a non-custodial sentence. Unlawful Act (Constructive) Manslaughter: Here the accused lacks the mens rea for murder but kills someone in the course of committing an unlawful (criminal) act. It is called constructive manslaughter because liability for manslaughter is built up from a baseline of another crime. Liability has been built up from a lesser crime into a much more serious crime. E.G. pushing another (battery) – falling down the stairs – death. The D is liable even though he did not realise that death or injury might occur. If -> D does and act AND -> that act is a crime AND -> that act is dangerous AND -> that act cause the victim to die then = D may be convicted of UAM. The modern definition of UAM arises from the case of DPP v Newbury and Jones (1977) and affirmed in A-G’s Reference (No.3 of 1994) (1998). The court stated that to be guilty of the offence the prosecution must prove: 1. That the D intentionally (voluntarily) does an act (not an omission) 2. The act was unlawful 3. The unlawful act was dangerous 4. The unlawful act caused the death of the V The D intentionally (voluntarily) does an act: There must be an act and that act must be intentional/voluntary (civil wrong is not enough), which results in the death of a person. This refers to intention with regard to doing the act , not to the consequences of the act. Where death is caused by an omission and the prosecution cannot prove murder, the only forms of manslaughter available are GNM or RM. See: R v Lowe (1973).

1

Criminal Law – Year 2!

Homicide - Manslaughter 2012 The act was unlawful: The unlawful act must amount to a criminal offence. Firstly, an act which is lawful per se cannot be used as the basis for the UAM simply by reason of the manner in which it was carried out. For example, driving is lawful per se, so there can be no UAM by careless driving which causes death. See: Andrews v DPP (1937). Secondly, the prosecution must prove a complete crime has been committed, and that both the AR and MR are satisfied. See: Lamb (1967), R v Franklin, and Scarlet (1993). The unlawful act does not have to be aimed at the V. See: R v Mitchell (1983) and R v Goodfellow (1986). The act must be dangerous: The unlawful act (the base crime) must be dangerous. This is an objective test – reasonable people would recognise it might cause some harm to another person. ‘…the unlawful act must be 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…’ See: R v Church (1966), R v Carey (2006) , and R v Dawson (1985) where the harm must be physical, not emotional. Church (1966) – Dangerousness is assessed by applying an objective test. Larkin (1943) – Guilty, as threatening the man with a cut-throat razor was an assault and it was dangerous because it was likely to cause some harm. Dawson (1985) – The CoA held that the Church test is based on the knowledge of the sober and reasonable person present at the scene. Such a person would not inevitably recognise a 60-year-old man as having a weak heart. Watson (1989) – D must have become aware of the V’s approximate age and frailty, therefore, since a sober and reasonable bystander would also have become aware of those circumstances the D’s unlawful act was Church dangerous. The act caused the death: The rules on causation are the same for murder. Causing death by supplying drugs: R v Cato – Injecting V with heroin is an unlawful act, which V cannot consent to. R v Kennedy (2007) and R v Bryam (2008) – Can more than simply supplying the drug result in a conviction for UAM? Dalby (1982) – Supplying the drug was unlawful but had not caused the death. The injection was the cause of death and this was a voluntary act by the V which has broken the CoC. Dias (2002) – Self-injection was not an unlawful act, break of CoC. Kennedy (2007) – At V’s request for something to make him sleep, D provided heroin-filled syringe which V injected and died. D guilty of manslaughter. Rogers (2003) – The D participated in the injection of heroin by holding a tourniquet round the V arm, the injection caused the death and the D taking part was guilty of manslaughter.

2

Criminal Law – Year 2!

Homicide - Manslaughter 2012 Gross Negligence Manslaughter: This is a different type of manslaughter where the D owes the V a DoC but breaches that duty causing the death of the V. It can be committed by an act or an omission which does not have to be unlawful. The classic definition of negligence in relation to manslaughter: ‘…the accused went beyond a mere matter of compensation between subjects and showed such a disregard for the life and safety of others as to amount to a crime against the state and conduct deserving of punishment…’ See: R v Bateman (1925) , Finlay (2001), and Edwards (2001). The leading case is Adomako (1995): 1. The existence of a duty of care towards the V 2. A breach of that duty of care which causes death 3. Gross negligence which the jury considers to be criminal Duty of care: The ordinary principles of negligence in the civil law apply in determining when a duty exists and when it is breached (Donoghue v Stevenson and Caparo v Dickman ). The prosecution must prove that the D was under a DoC: parent and child/ voluntary assumption/ contractual duty/ self-created danger/assumed duty of care. See: R v Singh (1999), R v Litchfield (1998) , Stone and Dobinson (1977) , Wacker (2002), Willoughby (2005), R v Evans (Gemma) (2009), R v Ruffell (2003), Pitwood, Gibbons and Proctor and Miller. Breach of duty of care: Same as negligence – objective – A person is negligent if they bring about consequences which a reasonable and prudent person would not have brought about. It is now clear that the jury must be satisfied that the breach of duty involves an obvious risk of death. See: Mirsa and Srivastava (2005) and Mark (2004). The prosecution does not have to prove that the D knew his conduct involved a risk of death or that he foresaw the risk. See: Mark (2004). Causation: Apply normal rules of causation. Gross  The jury will have to consider ‘…whether the extent to which the accused’s conduct departed from the proper standard of care incumbent upon him involving as it must have done a risk of death to the V was such that is should be judged criminal…’ Reckless Manslaughter: Is where the D is aware of a significant and highly probable risk of serious injury and causes death. Subjective reckless manslaughter therefore occurs where the D at the time of his act:  Intended injury or took a risk regardless and the death of the V followed. See: Lidar (2000)

3

Criminal Law – Year 2!...