UAM (invol mansl)

Unlawful act manslaughter

Criminal act subsequently causing death.

R v goodfellow set out 4 questions to be answered positively if conviction is to be secured

1) unlawful act

Civil act (tort law) is not sufficient.( r v Franklin)

Apply- decide the unlawful act.

The unlawful act cannot be committed by an omission (r v lowe)

Dangerous act

Irrelevant weather or not D realise the act was dangerous

R v church: would the reasonable man foresee the risk? Only need to foresee some harm.

Apply

Reaffirmed in DPP v Newbury and Jones. Two boys throwing bricks, killed driver. Reasonable man would see danger.

R v Dawson: if someone suffered a medical condition because of D but you couldn’t tell they had it there’s no danger.

But r v Watson: if you could see the frankness and condition it’s dangerous

Causing death

Causation

Mr

Mr for unlawful act not death..

R v goodfellow

Main case. Four questions for conviction. Set fire to his house for tax evasion or something, killed family.

R v Franklin

Must be criminal offence,. Tort or civil law not enough.

R v lowe

Offence cannot be committed by omission

R v church

Would reasonable man foresee risk. Only ‘some harm’ needs to be foreseen.

DPP v Newbury and jones.

Not necessary to prove D saw harm as long as reasonable man did.

R v larkin

Threatened a man with a razor. Someone tried to stop him and got slashed by the blade. It was Likely to injure someone, doesn’t need to be directed at one person.

R v JM & SM

Sober and reasonable person should foresee the harm.

R v Dawson

If D suffered medical condition at hands of Ds crime but the medical condition could not be seen clearly there was no danger of physical harm.

R v Watson

If medical condition V suffered is obvious due to age or clear frailty it’s dangerous.