454245
| Question | Answer |
| What is involuntary manslaughter? | When a D causes kills without malice aforethought i.e. with no intention |
| How many types of involuntary manslaughter are there? | There are 5 types but you only need to know: 1) Unlawful act manslaughter 2) Gross negligence manslaughter |
| What is unlawful act manslaughter? | Defined in R v Larkin: Unlawful act manslaughter is when a person is engaged in performing an unlawful act that is dangerous and likely to injure another person. If someone dies from that act, then he is guilty of manslaughter. |
| What are the four elements you need to satisfy in order to prove unlawful act manslaughter? | As seen in DPP v Newbury and Jones: 1) D must do an intentional act (Not omission) as seen in Lowe 2) The act must be unlawful (a criminal act not civil wrong) as seen in Franklin and also R v Lamb 3) The act must be objectively dangerous as seen in Church 4) The act must cause the death |
| Does the D have to have intended the fatal consequence in order to prove that the act was intentional? | No, as seen in Larkin the D only needs to have the intention to do the act not the consequence of the act. (sort of like oblique intention) |
| What is the principle in Scarlett? | That if the defendant would have a justificatory defence (e.g. self-defence), then there is no ‘crime’/unlawful act for the purposes of unlawful act manslaughter |
| In drug cases, does the act of self-injection break the chain of causation? | Yes it does according to Dias it does as it is your own decision to inject yourself. However, if you are forced to inject yourself then it does not break the chain of causation. |
| What does dangerous mean in 'the act must be dangerous'? | Defined in Church to mean 'The unlawful act must be such as all reasonable and sober people would inevitably recognise must subject the other person to, at least, THE RISK OF SOME HARM resulting therefrom, albeit not serious harm’ |
| In the 'act must cause the death' stage what must you apply to prove the act caused the death? | Causation: Factual causation Legal Causation Novus actus interveniens |
| Does the act which causes the death need to be directed at the victim? | No, as seen in Goodfellow |
| What is gross negligence manslaughter? | Causing a death through negligence i.e. when you owe a duty of care to someone and then go ahead and breach that duty which then results in the death of the victim. |
| What four elements must be satisfied in order to prove gross negligence manslaughter? | This test was confirmed in Adamako 1) That there was a Duty of care 2) Breach of that duty 3) The Breach caused the death 4) Breach was grossly negligent |
| What did the case of Singh emphasise? | That there must be an objective risk of death at the time of the breach of the duty of care. |
| What did Bateman state in regards to the level of negligence that must be present? | That the negligence must show disregard for the life and safety of others as to amount to a crime. |
Want to create your own Flashcards for free with GoConqr? Learn more.