Class notes
Involuntary manslaughter lecture notes
- Course
- Institution
Lecture notes - Involuntary manslaughter (Queen Mary University of London)
[Show more]
Seller
Follow
bianca200097
Content preview
Tuesday, 19 November 2019Involuntary manslaughter
1. Unlawful act manslaughter: D commits a criminal act in dangerous circumstances,
and this causes the death of V.
2. Gross negligence manslaughter: D causes V’s death through criminal negligence.
3. Reckless manslaughter: D causes V’s death, reckless as to that result.
Anything that doesn’t fit into murder can potentially fit into reckless manslaughter. - the just
below virtual certainty
Reckless Manslaughter :
- This is the correct charge where there is evidence that D foresaw death or serious injury
resulting from his/her conduct but there is insufficient evidence that D directly intended
that consequence or foresaw it as virtually certain.
- Hyam (1975) - set fire to mailbox, petrol through later box. Not virtually certain the people
would die, however with high probability. Intent for murder wasn’t given.
- Goodfellow (1986) - defendant wanted his council flat to be refurbished and council didn’t
move on that particular request and decided to set fire to the estate. Killed wife, son and
sons girlfriend. They went for constructive manslaughter.
- Arson
- Risk of harming people - dangerous
- Clear causation
- Hancock and Shankland (1985) - striking miners, threw a piece of concrete to the road to
keep miners from reaching work and killed a taxi driver
- Lidlr - petrol through letter box, court decided that high potability is not enough.
Constructive (unlawful act) Manslaughter :
- This is the correct charge when there is evidence that death resulted from an unlawful act
of D but there is insufficient evidence that D intended or foresaw death or serious injury.
- Actus Reus
1. An act (causing death)
- Omissions are not sufficient even where there is a duty of care.
- Lowe - child died from neglect. Court said has to be an atto constitute constructive
manslaughter.
1
, Tuesday, 19 November 2019
2. The act must be criminally unlawful
• R v Franklin (1883) - D threw a box from pier and box fell on a swimmer. Court said no
constructive manslaughter.
• R v Lamb (1967) - 2 boys playing with the revolver, they wanted to play an endangered
version of Russian roulette. They changed the position of the bullet. Chamber revolves
then suddenly there was a bullet. One boy died. Is it an unlawful and dangerous act?
Court said no, we need a criminally unlawful act.
• It is the pulling of the trigger that causes the death, not possession of gun.
• If D has a defence to the criminal act relied upon he cannot be guilty of constructive
manslaughter: R v Slingsby (1995), - The defendant penetrated the complainant’s vagina
and rectum with his hand; she suffered cuts caused by a signet ring worn by the
defendant; septicaemia developed and she died.
• R v Scarlett (1993) - The appellant was a publican. He ejected a drunken customer from
his pub. The customer fell, hit his head and died. The appellant was convicted of
manslaughter and appealed. There was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the
appellant had used excessive force and thus no unlawful act had been established.
3. The act must be unlawful in itself (e.g. assault), rather than because (e.g. dangerous
driving) it is performed in a dangerous fashion
• Andrews [1937] AC 576: If D kills V while speeding or driving dangerously he cannot
be charged with constructive manslaughter, but only gross negligence or reckless
manslaughter.
• Offences of negligence are not enough
4. The criminal act must be dangerous
• R v Church [1966] 1 QB CCA: ‘the act must be such that 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.’
• Sylvia Notts mocked the appellant's ability to satisfy her sexually and
slapped his face. A fight developed during which the appellant knocked
her unconscious. He tried to wake her for 30 mins to no avail. He believed
she was dead and threw her body into a river. Medical evidence revealed
that the cause of death was drowning and she therefore had been alive
when he threw her into the river. The trial judge made several errors in his
direction to the jury and in the event they convicted of manslaughter
rather than murder. The appellant appealed on the grounds of
misdirection.
2
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller bianca200097. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $13.45. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
77824 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy study notes for 14 years now