495931
IM Evaluation
- Unlawful act M
- Problems
- Wide range of conduct
- E.g. pushing V or an act
just short of murder
- Large variation in
blameworthiness
- Consequently max life
imprisonment but no
min sentence
- Could separate levels of
blameworthiness to create
narrower sentencing bands
- Could separate levels of
blameworthiness to create
narrower sentencing bands
- E.g. pushing V or an act
just short of murder
- Death an unexpected result
- Mitchell
- Transferred malice
- Transferred malice
- Cato
- Death a much less
unexpected outcome
- Death a much less
unexpected outcome
- Should both be found guilty of the same offence and
branded with the same level of blameworthiness?
- Mitchell
- Objective part of the test
- LC (R): Legislating the Criminal Code:
Involuntary Manslaughter, No 237 (1996)
- Recommended the
abolition of the offence
- Recommended the
abolition of the offence
- Why should a D be liable for a
serious offence when he didn't even
realise the risk of some harm?
- Conflicts with the law
where the MR required
is recklessness
- Under recklessness D must
be shown to foresee the risk
- G and another
- G and another
- Recklessness applies to a range
of offences which carry less serious
sentences and social stigmas
- Under recklessness D must
be shown to foresee the risk
- LC (R): Legislating the Criminal Code:
Involuntary Manslaughter, No 237 (1996)
- Wide range of conduct
- Reform proposals
- LC (R): Murder, Manslaughter
and Infanticide (2006)
- Proposed 3 tier
structure for homicide
- 1st degree
and 2nd
degree murder
and
manslaughter
- Cover (1) GNM and (2)
criminal act manslaughter
- (2) CAM: (a) through the commission of a criminal act intended by
D to cause injury, or (b) through the commission of a criminal act
that D was aware involved a serious risk of causing some injury
- Subjective test
- Some serious M offences would become 2nd
degree and so distinguish balmewothiness
- Subjective test
- (2) CAM: (a) through the commission of a criminal act intended by
D to cause injury, or (b) through the commission of a criminal act
that D was aware involved a serious risk of causing some injury
- 1st degree
and 2nd
degree murder
and
manslaughter
- Proposed 3 tier
structure for homicide
- LC (R): Murder, Manslaughter
and Infanticide (2006)
- Problems
- GNM
- Problems
- Circular test
- Jury have to decide whether to convict
D of M (a criminal offence) by deciding
whether his conduct was criminal
- Jury have to decide whether to convict
D of M (a criminal offence) by deciding
whether his conduct was criminal
- Incosistency
- Test makes jury decide point of law.
This is normally decided by J in other
offences and jury just decide on facts
- As each case is tried by a different
jury there may be inconsistencies in
similar circumstances
- Test makes jury decide point of law.
This is normally decided by J in other
offences and jury just decide on facts
- Civil or criminal negligence
- Adomako
- Lord Mackay: 'Ordinary
principles of negligence applied
in deciding whether D had
broken a duty of care owed to V'
- Appears to say civil
tests apply to criminal
- Not developed the same
- Stone & Dobinson (GNM)
would not be liable with the
application of civil tests.
- LC pointed out this
inconsistency in
their 1996 report on
manslaughter
- LC pointed out this
inconsistency in
their 1996 report on
manslaughter
- Stone & Dobinson (GNM)
would not be liable with the
application of civil tests.
- Not developed the same
- Appears to say civil
tests apply to criminal
- Lord Mackay: 'Ordinary
principles of negligence applied
in deciding whether D had
broken a duty of care owed to V'
- Adomako
- Risk of death
- Clarified in Misra - CA held test for GNM
includes consideration of the risk of death. Risk
of bodily injury or injury to health is insufficient
- Clarified in Misra - CA held test for GNM
includes consideration of the risk of death. Risk
of bodily injury or injury to health is insufficient
- Circular test
- Reform proposals
- 1996
- Splitting GNM into
reckless killing and killing
by gross carelessness
- RK: D is aware that his
conduct will cause
death or serious injury
and it is unreasonable
in the circumstances
for him to have taken
the risk, having regard
to the circumstances as
he believes them
- Answers the criticisms
that D can be liable for
the serious offence
without awareness of
the consequences
- Answers the criticisms
that D can be liable for
the serious offence
without awareness of
the consequences
- GC: D's conduct falls far below
what can reasonably be expected of
him in the circumstances, or intends
by his conduct to cause some injury
or unreasonably takes the risk that it
may do so, and the conduct causing
the injury constitutes an offence
- RK: D is aware that his
conduct will cause
death or serious injury
and it is unreasonable
in the circumstances
for him to have taken
the risk, having regard
to the circumstances as
he believes them
- Splitting GNM into
reckless killing and killing
by gross carelessness
- 2006
- Single GNM offence where a person
by his conduct causes the death of
another; a risk that his conduct will
cause death... would be obvious to a
reasonable person in his position; he is
capable of appreciating that risk at the
material time; and his conduct falls far
below what can reasonably be
expected of him in the circumstances
- Largely restates the law. LC
proposed the keeping of the of the
rule that GNM can be committed
where D was unaware of the risk
- But D must
appreciate this at the
material time.
Protecting those with
disabilities and
younger Ds
- But D must
appreciate this at the
material time.
Protecting those with
disabilities and
younger Ds
- Largely restates the law. LC
proposed the keeping of the of the
rule that GNM can be committed
where D was unaware of the risk
- Single GNM offence where a person
by his conduct causes the death of
another; a risk that his conduct will
cause death... would be obvious to a
reasonable person in his position; he is
capable of appreciating that risk at the
material time; and his conduct falls far
below what can reasonably be
expected of him in the circumstances
- 1996
- Problems
- Reform of RM
- 2006
- LC proposed the abolition of RM as a separate
category. Suggested that the less serious
cases would be covered by GNM and the
more serious (those in which there is also an
intention to cause injury or a fear or risk of
injury) would come under 2nd degree murder
- LC proposed the abolition of RM as a separate
category. Suggested that the less serious
cases would be covered by GNM and the
more serious (those in which there is also an
intention to cause injury or a fear or risk of
injury) would come under 2nd degree murder
- 2006
Want to create your own Mind Maps for free with GoConqr? Learn more.