7727290
Involuntary
Manslaughter
- Unlawful killing where D does not have the
intention to kill or cause GBH.
- Unlawful and
Dangerous Act
Manslaughter (UDAM)
- Gross Negligence
Manslaughter
- Subjective Recklessness
Manslaughter (Not relevant
to AQA)
- Unlawful and
Dangerous Act
Manslaughter (UDAM)
- Unlawful and Dangerous Act
Manslaughter (UDAM)
- Must do an
unlawful act
- Must be a
crime: LAMB
- An omission is
insufficient:
LOWE
- Need not be aimed at
V or even another
person, could be
property:
GOODFELLOW
- Must be a
crime: LAMB
- Unlawful act
must be
dangerous
- Objective test: CHURCH
- A reasonable man must
foresee a risk of some harm
to another person resulting
from the unlawful act
- A reasonable man must
foresee a risk of some harm
to another person resulting
from the unlawful act
- It doesn't matter if D did
not realise there was any
risk to another person
- Where a reasonable man would be
aware of V's frailty and the risk of
physical harm by shock to him, then
the unlawful act will be dangerous:
WATSON
- Objective test: CHURCH
- Unlawful act must
cause V's death
- Must be a cause in
fact and in law
- Cannot be an
intervening
act
- Cannot be an
intervening
act
- Where D supplies V with
an illegal drug (unlawful
act of administering a
noxious substance)
- D injects V and V
dies, he can be
convicted, more
than a minimal act:
CATO
- D prepared the
syringe and handed to
V, who injects himself,
D did not cause the
death: KENNEDY
- D injects V and V
dies, he can be
convicted, more
than a minimal act:
CATO
- Must be a cause in
fact and in law
- D must have the
mens rea of the
unlawful act
- E.g. battery, D must
have intention or
recklessness as to
applying force to V:
VENNA
- It is not necessary for
D to realise that the
act is unlawful and
dangerous: DPP v
NEWBURY AND JONES
- E.g. battery, D must
have intention or
recklessness as to
applying force to V:
VENNA
- Must do an
unlawful act
- Gross Negligence Manslaughter
- D must owe
a duty of
care to V
- Owed to people who are so
closely and directly affected
by D's conduct that D ought
to have them in
contemplation when acting
or omitting to act:
DONOGHUE v STEVENSON
- Doctor has duty of
care to a patient:
ADOMAKO
- Motorists owe a duty of
care to other road users
and pedestrians:
ANDREWS v DPP
- D owes a duty of
care where he has
assumed that role:
WACKER
- Where D has
contributed to the
creation of a state
of affairs which
they know to be life
threatening: EVANS
- Owed to people who are so
closely and directly affected
by D's conduct that D ought
to have them in
contemplation when acting
or omitting to act:
DONOGHUE v STEVENSON
- By his act or
omission, D
must breach the
duty of care
- Where D fails to reach
the standard of care
expected of the
reasonable person in
the circumstances:
ADOMAKO
- Where D holds themselves
as having a certain skill, a
higher standard of care is
expected, e.g. doctor or
electrician
- Where D fails to reach
the standard of care
expected of the
reasonable person in
the circumstances:
ADOMAKO
- D's negligence
must have caused
V's death
- Must be a cause in
fact and in law
- Cannot be a
intervening act
which breaks the
chain of causation
- Must be a cause in
fact and in law
- There must be a
serious and
obvious risk of
death in the
circumstances
- A reasonable person
would have foreseen a
serious and obvious risk
of death: MISRA
- A reasonable person
would have foreseen a
serious and obvious risk
of death: MISRA
- D's negligence
must be gross
- Jury must decide if it was so
bad in all the circumstances
to amount to a criminal act
or omission: ADOMAKO
- Jury must decide if it was so
bad in all the circumstances
to amount to a criminal act
or omission: ADOMAKO
- D must owe
a duty of
care to V
Want to create your own Mind Maps for free with GoConqr? Learn more.