Detailed notes and explanations on Criminal Law Chapters - Homicide, Murder, Manslaughter, Non-Fatal Offences, Offences Against the Person with statutory provisions and case notes
fall within the wider definition of homicide. Murder is committed when a person of sound
mind unlawfully kills another person and they have the intention to kill or to cause grievous
bodily harm. A number of complete defences to murder exist, including self-defence, as well
as partial defences, including diminished responsibility and loss of control.
Manslaughter can be either voluntary or involuntary.
Examples of voluntary manslaughter include diminished responsibility and loss of
control, the latter of which was introduced through the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 and
replaced the old common law defence of provocation.
Involuntary manslaughter applies where a person has caused the death of another
but they have done so without the intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm.
Examples of involuntary manslaughter include gross negligence manslaughter, medical
manslaughter and unlawful act manslaughter. The Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate
Homicide Act 2007, only the second such piece of legislation in the world to deal with
corporate killings, introduced the new offence of corporate manslaughter, which makes it
an offence for a qualifying organisation to cause a person’s death through a gross breach of
a relevant duty of care owed by the organisation to the deceased.
In addition to the various legislative changes of the last decade, recent case law has led to
some of the most significant developments in the law on murder. Perhaps the most
significant of these is the 2016 Supreme Court case of R v Jogee [2016] UKSC 8, which
redefined the controversial doctrine of joint enterprise. In addition to these important legal
developments, there is evidence of a shift in attitudes towards sentencing in murder cases,
with calls for a more nuanced approach to replace the current mandatory life sentence.
Whilst some of these recent developments have arguably been to the defendant’s
advantage, it is clear that in cases concerning the death of another, there can be no
compromise when it comes to representation.
MANSLAUGHTER
Already passed the AR element
INVOLUNTARY:
Defendant LACKS MALICE AFORETHOUGHT- 3 different types all of which are common
law creations & NOT statutory offences
RECKLESS MANSLAUGHTER
GROSS NEGLIGENCE MANSLAUGHTER
CONSTRUCTIVE MANSLAUGHTER
,VOLUNTARY:
D HAS MALICE AFORETHOUGHT BUT – these are creation of statutes created by the
homicide act 1957- 3 new forms of manslaughter
LOSS OF CONTROL replaced the early provocation partial defence (C&JA 2009,SS.
54,55,56) (FORMERLY PROVOCATION)- the statute to start with is 2009 legislation
DIMINISHED RESPONSIBILITY (HOMICIDE ACT 1957, S. 2 as amended)- still the governing
statute but just been amended
SUICIDE PACT (governed by the HOMICIDE ACT 1957, s. 4 as amended)
All the above make murder into manslaughter- the circumstances make it inappropriate
to name it murder & for mandatory life sentence to follow- recognise the circumstances in
which d was in- it was wrong but not as serious with murder & its consequences- the above
are the defences.
INVOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER: (discretionary life sentence) CONSTRUCTIVVE
MANSLAUGHTER (aka unlawful act)
Charges of involuntary manslaughter (sometimes called "criminally negligent homicide")
often come in the wake of a deadly car crash caused by a motorist under the influence of
alcohol or drugs. While the motorist never intended to kill anyone, his or her negligence
in operating a vehicle while impaired is enough to meet the requirements of the charge.
Some states recognize a separate class of manslaughter called vehicular manslaughter.
Involuntary manslaughter does not have to involve motor vehicles. For example, if the
operator of a dangerous carnival ride fails to ensure that all passengers are strapped in
and people die as a result, the operator could be prosecuted for involuntary
manslaughter. A building manager who recklessly neglects to install smoke detectors
before the occurrence of a deadly fire might be charged with involuntary manslaughter,
too.
Involuntary manslaughter is punished less severely than other forms of homicide but still
is a serious crime. Under Pennsylvania law, for example, involuntary manslaughter is
charged as a first degree misdemeanor. This carries a penalty of imprisonment for up to
five years; but if the act is committed by the caretaker of a child under 12, it's charged
as a second degree felony (with a possible prison sentence of up to 10 years upon
conviction).
Larkin (1942)- d is armed with a knife which he is waving at another person- his
mistress falls into the knife & dies. He had clearly committed an assault- he
intended to assault but this was enough to be constructive manslaughter. This is a
classic situation of constructive manslaughter, which is a wide offence & regarded
as a harsh law- involves constructive liability, as long as you have MR of unlawful
act e.g. to frighten & you kill, it is manslaughter, there doesn’t need to be an
intention to cause harm or more. There is also no need to see the foreseeability of
harm- it is wide/harsh/ constructive.
ACTUS REUS:- one of the few limitations is that it applies only to ACTS not omission
Lowe [1973]- d neglected his young baby who died as result of dehydration, the
failure & omission to act was not constructive manslaughter.
, I) UNLAWFUL (constructive) – the act has to be unlawful Franklin (1883)-
established that torts don’t satisfy the basis for a constructive manslaughter
charge, looking for something that is crime; Lamb [1967]- 2 friends messed around
with a loaded gun- they knew the gun was loaded with 2 bullets but the bullets
were in the cylinder, the bullet hit one of them & the COA held there was no
unlawful act but a terrible accident so constructive manslaughter could not have
been bought against them. They could be convicted of gross negligence
manslaughter but the CA was not prepared to say the jury would have convicted D
of this. The conviction was overturned by the CA because they weren’t prepared to
second guess what a jury would have done; Simon Slingsby [1965] – d engaged in
sexual activity with his girlfriend which is wholly consensual- in doing so he inserts
his finger into her but he is wearing a signature ring which tares her, it becomes
infected & she dies. He is charged with manslaughter- there was no unlawful act as
it was consensual & thus not constructive manslaughter
DANGEROUS driving– a lot of cases under this- using your vehicle as a weapon can
be murder but cannot be constructive manslaught6er because driving is an
inherently lawful activity- it is not an unlawful act. The unlawful act must be
dangerous- it must be one which in Church [1966]- was said to ‘... Subject the other
person to the risk of some harm’- thus not difficult to satisfy but rather easy.
Subsequently confirmed in Newbury [1977]- a HOL decision. 2 teenage boys
standed on a railway bridge, lifted a stone into which went into the carriage &
killed the drive. Ay no stage was the nature of the lawful act made explicit- they
were convicted, as the act was clearly dangerous & unlawful.
CAUSES death (NB the causation cases looked at earlier e.g. Kennedy No 2 [2007]-
HOL in a withering judgement got rid of several years of muddled thinking of the
COA & demolished previous cases which established that if someone supplies drugs
to someone else who then injects themselves will be manslaughter because the
victim voluntarily injects themselves & thus breaks the chain of causation. D may be
liable for supply but not homicide. The court when looking at these cases needs to
ask if the victims acts are forseeable (d would be liable) or from Roberts are they
“daft & unexpected.” In Daliway there is a possibility that where D commits suicide
as a result of their partners actions- this would not break the chain of causation- it
is obiter dictum but suggest that suicide as a result of sustained abuse wont break
the chain)
EXAM- draw on the offence elements & causation cases to see if d caused the death
MENS REA: INTENTION TO DO UNLAWFUL ACT –Lamb [1967]
(NO REQUIREMENT THAT ACT BE AIMED AT VICTIM – this may have been
another way to put boundaries on this offence but attorney general didn’t. A-G’s Ref
(No 3 of 1994) [1997])
Because it is a harsh crime- in early discussion CA suggested we abolish it however
subsequently persuaded by judiciary prosecutors that there was merit in having
this offence as long as it was controlled. The law commission 2006 would have
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 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 nehalcorsini. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for £7.99. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
