Manslaughter Summary PDF

Preview

Summary

Download Manslaughter Summary PDF

Description

MANSLAUGHTER SUMMARY If you commit an unlawful/criminal  act which is also dangerous and this act causes  death then you are guilty of manslaughter. Two types of manslaughter: Voluntary/ Involuntary To establish constructive manslaughter prosecution must show: • • • •

that the accused had committed an unlawful act; that the act was a substantial cause of death; that the accused intended to commit the act as distinct from intending its consequence. that the act was dangerous in the sense that a sober and reasonable person would inevitably recognise that it carried some risk of harm. 

Voluntary Manslaughter- Provocation, heat of passion crime. You were provoked, you had no time to cool off and you were not thinking straight intent does not exist Involuntary Manslaughter- Negligent killing. Negligent conduct causing death Case Law Andrews v DPP (1937)- T  he appellant drove a van above the speed limit and overtook another car. As he did so he struck a pedestrian and killed him.His conviction for manslaughter was upheld.

R. v. Wild (1837)-Intention was only to cause minor harm. D was at home with V who had outstayed his welcome. In trying to impress on the V how much he wanted him to leave, he kicked him. That kick caused the death of the V. The court said the act was unjustifiable and he was convicted of manslaughter. R v Larkin (1942)- The appellant waved a razor about intending to frighten his mistress's lover. He claimed his mistress, who was drunk, blundered against the razor and was killed when it cut her throat. Conviction upheld. An unlawful act had been committed consisting of the assault against the mistress's lover. This was a dangerous act in that it was one which a sober and reasonable person would regard as dangerous. The People (A.G.) v. Crosbie & Meehan [1966] I.R. 490- Two D’s went out one evening looking for a third party with the intention to assault him- armed with weapons- Crosbie has a knife and Meehan has a spanner. Fight develops- 8 people- during fight the V(not the person they went out looking for) is stabbed by Crosby and dies. Crosby argued he produced the knife in self defence. Court argues that if you produce a knife with the intention of intimidation or

frightening others it is NOT self-defence (aggressive act) – unlawful act. Dangerousness of producing knife in a fight. Judged  on objective standards( what would the reasonable person do). People (DPP) v. Hendley -The accused injured his wife during an argument and she dies about an hour later- domestic violence. Clear signs of strangulation and at some point VV falls to the ground and pressure is applied to her liver. Cause of death was the damage to the liver. The D argues he did not cause that injury. He admits to causing other injury’s and argues that it happened after the assault – inadvertent injury( accidental) outside of the assault. Judge instructs the jury that it is sufficient that the prosecution to show the accused engaged in an unlawful actif inadvertent damage to the liver happen in the course of the unlawful act it would be sufficient to the unlawful act. D is convicted of manslaughter. Court of criminal appeal overturned this conviction- referenced Crosby and Meehan – said that for the accused to be charged the damage done to the liver must have been intended/ consciously carried out. Injury that killed the V had to match the action of the accused. Must  be unlawful and not accidental.

R. v Church [1965] -The D assaulted woman- thought she was dead threw her body in the river and she drowned. - continuing act. He argued it thought she was dead – it is not dangerous to throw a dead body in the river.

R. v. Dawson (1985) - Accused carrying out a robbery at a petrol station. Points an imitation weapon at the cashier who is 60 and has a heart condition- V has a heart attack and dies. Accused was unaware of this condition. Court applied the Church test*- use the knowledge of the sober and reasonable person present at the scene. The court argued that you may intended to scare someone but not scare them to death. This is too far outside the dangerousness- not objectively dangerous. R. v. Watson (1989) -Burglar broke into an 87 year old mans house- said he did not know the V was elderly. Became aware – rather than fleeing he carried on the act- verbally abused the V . V dies and court finds it to be unlawful and dangerous manslaughter. Reasonable person present at the scene that breaking into an elderly persons house would subject them to risk/harm. Age/ frailty of the V R. v. Bristow - Burglary- 6 men who raided farm workshops that were proximate to a farm house. Planned burglary which they attended the property they arrived in 2 cars. The V ( farm

owner) was found dead at the side of the driveway 7up to the farm- forsenic evidence showed he had been hit by a car. Real risk

R v F & E [2015] - Juveniles – Boy 14 and girl 16- set fire to a duvet in the basement of a building- fire spread to a pile of old tires and filled the property with toxic fumes- homeless man in the building died of smoke inhalation. D’s charged with manslaughter and agrivated arsen. E said she thought there was no one in the building – F said that he knew there were homeless in the building but thought they were not there.Court has to prove that the D foresaw the possibility that there were people in the building – the act was dangerous was dangerous based on the sober and reasonable person test.Convicted of manslaughter. Appealed on the note of they had to forsee that there was someone in the building and tried to challenge the objective test- they argues it was too difficult – they argues it should take into account the ability of people of similar ages to foresee harm/risk. Court said they would not take into account age. Court argued that the test was so developed in the system it is the legislature who would have to change this law.

DPP v Horgan [2007] - In Ireland a conviction for unlawful and dangerous act manslaughter (where the unlawful act is an assault) arises where: (a) the act which causes death constitutes a criminal offence and poses the risk of bodily harm to another; (b) the act is one which an ordinary reasonable person would consider to be dangerous, that is, likely to cause bodily harm; (c) in this regard ‘dangerous’ is to be judged objectively.”

DPP v O’Donoghue [2007] Horse play ( not an assault , messing behaviour).Court found that behaviour that fell short of assault could still be dangerous. Enough evidenced to conclude manslaughter.

Attorney General’s Reference No.3 of 1994 [1998] -Assualt resulted in premature birth and baby died as a result a few weeks later. Found guilty of manslaughter. Intention to perform unlawful and dangerous act. Court said it is objective that one could see that assaulting a pregnant woman would cause harm/is dangerous.- could cause harm to her unborn child. R. v. Mitchell [1983] -Post office -pushed a man who fell on an old lady and she died as a result. R v Dalby (1982) -D was in possession (unlawful) which he acquired through presciprion – provided them to the friend and they both injected themselves. V died . Dalby convicted on manslaughter. Although his act was unlawful it wasn’t dangerous because the dangerousness was not inherent to the providing of drugs- dangerousness depended on the actions of the deceased. R v Holzer [1968] -Accused in a fight with V and hit him in the face- V fell backwards and hit his head on the road and died. DPP v Daley and McGhie [1980] -D chased V and threw stones at him in attempting to escape V tripped and fell and was subsequently found dead. Threat of the D behaviour was enough to amount to assault and context was enough to amount to it being dangerous- result in manslaughter conviction. R v Carey [2006] -15-year-old girl out with friends, 3 appellants verbally abused them and there was physical violence. V ran off after the assault she ran about 100 m and collapsed and died. Cause of death was a heart condition (unnoticed to her) . D’s convicted with unlawful and dangerous manslaughter. COA found that the cause of death was the running away in fear. Court concluded that no one knew about the medical condition – two separate from the actions of the accused.

R. v. Bateman [1925] A owed a duty to B to take care, that that duty was not discharged, ... that the default caused the death of B ... and that A’s negligence amounted to a crime.... [I]n order to establish criminal liability the facts must be such that, in the opinion of the jury, the negligence of the accused went beyond a mere matter of compensation between the subjects and showed such disregard for the life and safety of others as to amount to a crime against the state and conduct deserving punishment.

The People (A.G.) v. Dunleavy [1948] – LEADING IRISH CASE for gross negligence manslaughter.  Negligence would have to be to a very high degree before it could justify a manslaughter conviction. Test for gross negligence manslaughter requires that 1. t he accused was, by ordinary standards, negligent. 2. t he negligence caused the death of the victim. 3. t he negligence was of a very high degree; and 4.

the negligence involved a high degree of risk or likelihood of substantial personal injury to others. 

 eading English Case- “…gross negligence…depends…on the R. v. Adomako [1994] L seriousness of the breach of the duty committed by the defendant in all the circumstances in which he was placed when it occurred and whether, having regard to the risk of death involved, the conduct of the defendant was so bad in all the circumstances as to amount in the jury’s judgment to a criminal act or omission”....