Involuntary manslaughter

What case set out 6 elements to proving gross negligence manslaughter

R V broughton

What were the 6 elements to proving gross negligence manslaughter

• D owes v a DOC

• D must breach the DOC

• There must be a serious and obvious risk of death

• the risk of death must be reasonable and foreseeable

• D's breach must cause the death

• Breach must be grossly negligent

How to establish a Doc in gross negligence manslaughter

If you can see a case that fits use that and Robinson, id not just use Robinson

What one five types of duty.

Contractual , voluntarily accepting responsibility, creating a dangerous situation , relationship, public office

Contractual duty case

R V pitterwood

Voluntarily accepting responsibility case

R v dobinson + stone and broughton

Creating a dangerous situation case

. R V miller

Relationship duty case

R V gibbins and proctor

Public office duty case

R V Dythan

Who defines a breach

BlyTh v BWW

How does BlyTh v BWW define breach

Going below the standard of a reasonable person

What does Bolam

Being a professional increases the standard of care - your compared to a reasonable professional

What does mullin V Richard's

Your age can lower the standard of care - your compared to a reasonable child of the same age

What did nettleship v Weston say

Inexperience doesn't lower the standard of care

What are four risk factors

Size of risk, seriousness of potential harm practicality of precaution, benefit of potential harm

Case for size of risk

Miller v Jackson and Bolton V stone

Case for seriousness of potential harm

Paris V SBC

Cases for practicality of precaution

Paris V SBC , Latimer v AEC

Case for benefit of potential risk

Watt V MCC

What case do you use for serious and obvious risk of death

RV Rose

What did the court say about the concept of a serious and obvious risk

An obvious risk is a present risk which is clear and ambiguous, not one which might become apparent on further investigation

What does the serious and obvious risk have to be and what kind of test is it

Reasonable and foreseeable _ an objective tests.

Who doesn't have to foresee a serious and obvious risk of death

The defendant, but a reasonable person hast o for see a serious and obvious risk or death

Two types of causation

Legal and factual

Test and case for criminal factual causation

But for test RV pagett r V white

Test and case for criminal legal causation

Substantial and operative test r V smith.

Intervening acts

Acts of victim - r v Robert's _ RV Williams

Acts of third party - r v Jordan

Act of god

What never breachs chain of causation

Thin skull rule - r V blaue

Case decide it it was grossly negligent

Broughton

To decide if something is grossly negligence - the court said to ask the jury if

The circumstances of the breach where truly exceptionally bad as to require criminal sanction

Unlawful act manslaughter occurs when

I does not intend to kill or cause gbh but has committed an unlawful act which has lead to the death of v

4 elements of uam

Theres been an unlawful act

D has the mr for the act

The act must cause ds death

Act must be dangerous

Unlawful act manslaughter, stone and dobinson legal principle

A failure will be insufficient for unlawful act manslaughter, there must be an act

RV franklin legal principle

Unlawful act must be criminal. A civil wrong is not enough.

R v lamb legal principle

D must have all elements of the unlawful act AR & Mr

The defendant only needs the men's Rea for the

Unaware act, they dont need to have the men's Rea for the death.

DPPV Newbury and jones legal principal

It is not necessary to prove that D foresaw any harm from his act, a only needs the Mr of the unlawful act

Mitchel said

You can use transfered malice to fund d guilty

What causation do you use in criminal cases

Factual and legal

Case and test for factual

R v pagett but for test

Case and test for legal

R v smith the operative and substantial test

What does and doesnt break the chain

Intervening acts (rv roberts and r v williams) ( r v jordan)

Thin skull rule (r v blaue)

R v dear Legal principle

Self neglect by v doesnt break the chain of causation

Cato legal principle

If you administer drugs to someone, the chain of causation is not broken and ds guilty

Kennedy legal principle

If victim administers the drugs then its an act of the victim and the chain is broken so ds not guilty

State the church test of dangerousness

An act is dangerous if the sober reasonable person (srp) would realise that it carries a risk of some physical harm to a person

Dawson legal principle in relation to church test of dangerousness

The spr would only be given the knowledge they could have discovered when doing the act

Watson legal principle

The reasonable person would have realised the risk of physical harm if v was old and visibly frail

R v jm and sm legal principle

Tehre is no need for the srp to foresee the specific harm from which v died, only that v would suffer physical harm pf some sort

Goodfellow legal principle

Unlawful act can be aimed at property as long as the srp would realise it carried the risk of some physical harm to a person.

R v faron and ellis

The ds lack of knowledge die to their mental age wouldnt make any difference to their liability