Involuntary Manslaughter

Consolidation Session...

Aims and Objectives

• Our aim is to develop...............................&...........................of the key rules (AO )

• To practice the skills of ...........................& ..................................(A0 )

• To consolidate our...................................to ease revision

Starter.... Legal pictionary.... You know the rules...

Consolidation Task... Make a mind map of the following key points...

04/13/2023 copyright 2006 Free template from brainybetty.com ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 14

1. Was the Act Unlawful?

• The death must be caused by a criminal offence, a tort is not sufficient.

• Task: Complete your cases from page 3-6 of your handout and summarise the first test in your own words.

04/13/2023 copyright 2006 Free template from brainybetty.com ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 15

• R v Franklin

• R v Lamb

• R v Andrews

• R v Humble

• R v Arobieke

• R v Jennings

Must be unlawful

Lawful act does not become unlawful just because someone dies

Throwing a box into the sea was not sufficient

The v was not in fear therefore not assault

Pushing car into path of other cars was assault

Injecting insulin by unauthorised person is illegal

Standing on station platform is not illegal

Possessing a kitchen knife is not illegal without intent to do harm

04/13/2023 copyright 2006 Free template from brainybetty.com ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 16

2. Objectively Dangerous Act• The Unlawful Act must also

be dangerous. This is tested objectively as stated in R v Church.

• In R v Church it was held that all the circumstances are relevant and this includes

• those known to D • as well as those that would

have been known by the hypothetical ‘sober and reasonable’ person had they been present.

04/13/2023 copyright 2006 Free template from brainybetty.com ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 17

• DPP v Newbury & Jones

• R v Dawson

• R v Watson

• R v Wooley & Campbell

Boys dropped slab on train killing guard. If sober and reasonable man saw risk of injury it does not matter if D did not

Armed robbery at petrol station, no physical attack but attendant had heart disease and soon after died of a heart attack.Not m/s as reasonable man would no have seen risk of injury

DD broke into old man’s house, verbal abuse and man died.Court found that S&RM would have seen risk of injury as they saw a frail 87 yr old

2 women harassed old man in street he died of a heart attack. Jury found S&RM would have seen risk of injury

04/13/2023 copyright 2006 Free template from brainybetty.com ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 18

3. The substantial cause of death• The unlawful act must

cause the death. The rules here are the same as they are for murder and the egg-shell skull rule is also to be considered.

• Q: Tell me the rules on factual and legal causation

• Now complete your cases and summary up to page 14.

04/13/2023 copyright 2006 Free template from brainybetty.com ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 19

• Did not cause death• R v Bennett –

• R v Carey –

• Did cause the Death• R v Paget and R v Corian –Augustine

• Where more than one cause• Attorney Gen Ref No4 1980

• Does not need to be sole cause• R v Shohid

Illegal act of keeping fireworks did not cause death

The fight did not cause to run which was why she died

D did several acts that could kill. Can be seen as m/s even Though cannot identify the act that caused death

If D is part of group that causes m/s d is guilty even if does not commit the final act of killing as long as role is more than trivial

04/13/2023 copyright 2006 Free template from brainybetty.com ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 20

• Reaction of V must be foreseeable

Eg R v Hayward, R v Mackie and R v Corbett

• Example of unforeseeable

R v Williams & Davis

• Intervening event

R v Cheshire – medical intervention rarely breaks the chain - significantly contributed to death

Egg Shell Skull ruleR v Woods – Little brother dies from smack R v Ruby- V has v thin skull

DD picked up V and tried to rob him. His death by jumping from the speeding car was not foreseeable

04/13/2023 copyright 2006 Free template from brainybetty.com ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 21

Causation continued

• Drug misuse

R v Dias –

R v Rogers -

R v Kennedy -

D passes V a heroin filled syringe. V injects it and dies. D did not cause death. The voluntary injection broke the chain

D applies a tourniquet to V’s arm to help him inject drugs This was a cause as he directly assisted him. They were in a joint action therefore manslaughter

After originally being guilty of m/s as D passed a syringe to V who used it immediately and it was viewed as in a joint action the appeal court quashed the conviction as it was the same as R v Dias

04/13/2023 copyright 2006 Free template from brainybetty.com ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 22

4. The unlawful act must be intentional

• an omission will not do• but there need not have

been any intention to cause harm

• nor must d realise the act was unlawful or dangerous

• See DPP v Newbury & Jones, R v Le Brun, R v Cato

Consolidation Task....

• Working in groups of 3:-• Identify the offence• Explain whether each element is satisfied• What should D be convicted of?• Produce a poster of your responses and be

prepared to share these with the class...

R v Goodfellow R v Corion Auguste R v Cato DPP v Newbury & Jones

Omissions R v Lamb R v Franklin R v Arobieke

R v Slingsby R v Church R v Lowe R v Le Brun

Bingo... Consolidation time...what have you learned?