Unlawful Act cases PDF

Preview

Summary

list of cases for criminal law...

Description

Unlawful Act (constructive) MS Adomako [1994] 3 All ER 79 (GNMS) Facts: The defendant, Mr Adomako, was an anaesthetist. He was undertaking his role during an eye operation during which the patient was required to be placed under a general anaesthetic. During the operation, and whilst under Mr. Adomako’s supervision, a crucial tube became disconnected from the ventilator and the patient suffered a fatal cardiac arrest. Mr Adomako was convicted of the manslaughter by breach of duty. Issue: Mr Adomako appealed the conviction and questioned the legal basis of involuntary manslaughter by breach of duty. Held: Dismissing Mr Adomako’s appeal, it was held that in cases of manslaughter by criminal negligence involving a breach of duty the ordinary principles of the law of negligence applied to ascertain whether the defendant had been in breach of a duty of care to the victim. On the establishment of said breach of duty the next question was that of establishing causation and, and if this could be so established, whether it should be characterised as gross negligence and therefore a crime. This is ultimately a question for the jury, having regard to the risk of death involved, asking themselves ‘was the defendant’s conduct so bad in all the circumstances that it ought to amount to criminal?’ Church [1966] 1 QB 59 Facts: Mr Church and the victim were in a van for sexual purposes. The victim started mocking him and a fight ensued. He knocked the victim semi-conscious. After his attempts to rouse her proved unsuccessful, he panicked, thought the victim was dead and threw her into the river. The victim’s gravely injured body was found in the River Ouse; the cause of death was drowning. Mr Church was convicted of manslaughter. He appealed his conviction. Issue: Mr Church argued that the basis of his guilty verdict could not be criminal negligence, as the trial judge had only directed the jury on recklessness, nor provocation, as it was not adequate based on the facts. Thus, the only possible basis for manslaughter was that an unlawful act caused the death. He claimed, however, that the jury was misdirected on the relevance of his mistaken belief in the victim’s death when he threw her into the river, as mens rea is an essential element of manslaughter. Held: The nature of directions given on criminal negligence have to be decided based on the circumstances of each case – in the present case, it was sufficient to direct the jury about utter recklessness. Secondly, the commission of an unlawful act does not in itself make a manslaughter conviction inevitable. It is only satisfied if the unlawful act is such that all reasonable people would realise that the act would subject the victim to the risk of at least some harm resulting from it. The trial judge had thus misdirected the jury by claiming that Mr Church’s belief in the victim’s death when he threw her into the river was irrelevant. However, despite the misdirection, there was no substantial miscarriage of justice on the whole because, on proper direction, the verdict would necessarily have been that of guilty. The defendant, Terence Walter Lamb (Lamb), was arraigned on an indictment before Glyn-Jones J and a jury, charging that he unlawfully killed Timothy O’Donaghue (O’Donaghue).

R v Lamb 1967 2 QB 981

Lamb possessed a Smith & Wesson revolver, with a five-chambered cylinder. Lamb was joking with O’Donaghue, his best friend, by pointing the revolver at him whilst the cylinder contained two bullets in the chambers, neither of which were opposite the barrel. O’Donaghue likewise played along with the joke and was not concerned by the situation. Lamb then pulled the trigger, thereby rotating the cylinder clockwise, causing a bullet to be placed opposite to the barrel. The bullet was struck by the striking pin and killed O’Donaghue. Lamb contended that he had no intention to harm O’Donaghue or an intention to fire the revolver. He claimed that the killing of O’Donaghue was a mistake because he failed to acknowledge that the chamber rotated clockwise when the trigger was pulled, and that he otherwise believed that the two bullets in the cylinder were not in the barrel. The prosecution adduced evidence from three expert witnesses. The three experts were Mr McCafferty, a firearms expert, Mr Burr, an executive officer attached to the firearms branch of Scotland Yard, and, Police Constable Pullen. In directing the jury, Glyn-Jones J did not refer to the defence of accident or to the need for the prosecution to disprove accident before the jury came to a conclusion that the act was wrongful. Relevantly, the jury found Lamb guilty on both grounds of unlawful and dangerous act, and also criminal negligence. Lamb was the appeal from the judgment of Glyn-Jones J.

DPP v Newbury and Jones [1977] AC 550 Two boys threw a paving slab off a bridge onto a train. The slab killed a guard on the train Issue: Were the boys guilty of unlawful act manslaughter? Reasoning: The dangerousness test in unlawful act manslaughter comes from R v Church [1966] – the act must be capable of causing some harm

Watson [1989] 1 WLR 684 Facts: Mr Watson and another person threw a brick through the elderly and seriously ill victim’s house. Unaware of the victim’s condition and age, they entered the victim’s house. They verbally abused him and left. Within 90 minutes of the incident, the victim died. Mr Watson pleaded guilty to burglary under s.9(1)(a) of the Theft Act 1968, but was also tried for manslaughter resulting from an unlawful act. He was convicted of manslaughter but appealed. Issue: The trial judge directed the jury that manslaughter could be established if the victim’s death was caused by an unlawful act which a reasonable person would foresee as capable of causing the victim some harm, regardless of whether the defendant himself recognised that risk. The jury were entitled to assume that defendant gained knowledge that a hypothetical bystander would have gained during his stay in the house. Mr Watson argued that the jury had been misled, as at the time of the commission of the burglary (i.e. the time of his entry to the house), no reasonable bystander would have known more than him at that point. Consequently, the jury should not have been directed to assume any more knowledge to the reasonable bystander. Secondly, Mr Watson also claimed that the jury should not have had to deal with a fresh topic after retirement. Held: The Court rejected Mr Watson’s argument as to the unlawful act occurring only at the time of entry to the house. It was the entirety of the act of burglarious intrusion that constituted the unlawful act and therefore, all the knowledge the defendant gained throughout the burglarious intrusion (i.e. the victim’s age, health, etc.) counted. The jury were thus correctly directed on this

point. However, the introduction of a fresh topic to the jury after retirement, without giving an opportunity to the defendant to address to the jury on this issue, rendered the conviction unsafe.

Bristow [2013] EWCA Crim 1540 Fact: The victim interfered when a group of burglars were in his garage During their escape, the evidence suggested that one of the burglars had used a truck to run the victim over Issue: Were the defendants (all) guilty of unlawful act manslaughter? YES Reasoning: The escape took place as part of the continuing act of burglary, therefore they all committed unlawful act manslaughter as part of a joint enterprise

Kennedy (No.2) [2007] UKHL 38 Facts: The defendant and victim were living together in a hostel. The victim visited the defendant’s room and asked for “a bit to make him sleep”. The defendant prepared a dose of heroin for the victim, then passed him the syringe so that he could self-inject. The victim did so, and died several hours later as a result of choking on his own vomit while under the influence of the drug. The defendant was convicted of unlawful act manslaughter and appealed. Issue: whether the victim’s act in self injecting an intervening act was such as to break the chain of causation. An additional question was which unlawful act the manslaughter conviction should properly have been based. Held: It was held that as the victim was a fully informed and consenting adult, who had freely and voluntarily self-administered the drug without any pressure from the defendant, this was an intervening act. The chain of causation between the defendant’s act in supplying the drug and the victim’s death was therefore incomplete. The reasoning of the House was based on the need for the criminal law to respect free will and to treat the victim, being an adult of sound mind, as an autonomous individual. The defendant’s conviction was therefore overturned.

Goodfellow (1986) Crim LR 468 Facts: The appellant had been harassed by two men and wished to move from his council accommodation. In order to get re-housed he set fire to his house making it look as if it had been petrol bombed. Unfortunately his wife, son and son's girlfriend all died in the fire. Held: His conviction for manslaughter was upheld. There was no requirement that the unlawful act was directed at the victims nor that it was directed at a person....