Constructive Manslaughter

Question 1

What is the definition of constructive manslaughter?

Answer 1

An unlawful act that results in death.

The unlawful killing of a reasonable creature of being under the kings peace without the malice a forethought

Question 2

What 4 elements need to be satisfied for constructive manslaughter?

Answer 2

1.must be an unlawful positive act
2.this must have caused the death
3.the act must have been a dangerous one in that it must have injured someone
4.must be the mens rea of that unlawful act (not murder)

Question 3

What principle does Franklin 1883 state?

Answer 3

The D must have committed a crime which resulted in the death of the V (it must be a criminal. Act, can’t be an omission)

Question 4

3 case laws for ‘there must be an unlawful act”

Answer 4

-Lowe 1973
-R v Lamb 1967
-Larkin 1943

Question 5

Lowe 1973

Answer 5

D neglected his child, resulted in the child’s death
Held not guilty under constructive (could be for gross negligence)

Question 6

R v Lamb 1967 (legal principle)

Answer 6

If no unlawful act=D not liable for V’s death

Lamb shot his friend by accident, both men knew it was loaded but assumed it wouldn’t fire.
D couldn’t be held guilty of constructive manslaughter as he hadn’t committed assault as the V wasn’t aware of danger.

Question 7

Larkin 1943

Answer 7

D threatened another man with a razor at a party for chatting up his girlfriend. The other man’s Gf (the v) fell on the open blade and cut her throat.

D found guilty as he’d threatened the other man (assault)

Question 8

How does Humphries J explain the case of Larkin?

Answer 8

Where the act is unlawful and at the same time a dangerous act, likely to injure another person and he inadvertently causes the death of another person by that act then he is guilty of manslaughter.

Question 9

What is the test of dangerousness.

Answer 9

Objective: A sober reasonable person must agree that the unlawful act was dangerous

Question 10

What cases are there for a dangerous act?

Answer 10

R v Church 1966
R v Mitchell 1983
R v Goodfellow 1986

Question 11

What happened in the case of R v church?

Answer 11

D & v had sex and D was unable to satisfy V. D hit v and thought he had killed her, threw her body away and she drowned instead

D found guilty of manslaughter as a sober reasonable man would recognise the harm

Question 12

R v Mitchell 1983 (legal principle)

Answer 12

Dangerous act doesn’t need to be aimed at the V

D had fight with other customer, pushed customer who landed against V, an elderly woman who fell and died.
D was found guilty.

Question 13

R v Goodfellow (legal principle)

Answer 13

Dangerous act can be aimed at property

D set his house on fire, with the aim council would rehouse him, the fire killed his family.
D found guilty.

Question 14

What case supports ‘the resulting harm doesn’t need to be serious but must be physical’

Answer 14

Dawson and others 1985

Question 15

Dawson and others 1985

Answer 15

The causing of fear wasn’t considered dangerous even though it led to the v having a heart attack.
After this they stated ‘fear itself is not physical harm but if it results in shock, causing a heart attack it could amount to physical harm’

Question 16

Watson 1989

Answer 16

Jury considered ‘burglary’ to be a dangerous act due to the frailty of old people

Question 17

Which cases introduced the use of the objective test for physical harm/

Answer 17

R v Carey and Others (2006)
R v Lynch (2007)

Question 18

R v Carey and the other (2006)

Answer 18

The V was punched once when Dis attacked her. V ran away but unknown heart conditioned= her collapsing.
D’s conviction was quashed on appeal as ‘1 punch didn’t constitute as dangerous’. The reasonable person wouldn’t have concluded 1 punch would cause harm.

Question 19

R v Lynch 2007

Answer 19

V suffered from unknown heart condition and D had punched V a few times.

Convicted

Question 20

What 2 cases can you use for ‘The unlawful act must cause the death of the V’

Answer 20

R v Johnstone
R v Kennedy

Question 21

R v Johnstone

Answer 21

There was NO constructive manslaughter as it couldn’t be said that ‘throwing stones, abuse and spitting’ was more than a minimal cause of the V’s death.

Question 22

R V Kennedy

Answer 22

The unlawful act of supplying a syringe to the victim is not the cause of death as the victim injecting the drugs is deemed to be a break in causation

Question 23

What is the mens rea for constructive manslaughter.

Answer 23

The mens rea of the crime constituting the dangerous unlawful act required e.g assault

Question 24

R v Newbury & Jones (legal principle)

Answer 24

It is not necessary to prove that the D foresaw any harm from his/her unlawful act.

2 teens pushed a concrete onto a bridge and killed a guard
D was found guilty

Question 25

How may a drug dealer be liable for constructive manslaughter?

Answer 25

If the D is the one who administers the injection Under s.23 of against the persons act 1861

Question 26

Case examples of a drug taking scenario

Answer 26

R v Cato R v Dalby 1982 R v Dias R v Roger’s R v Kennedy

Question 27

R v Cato

Answer 27

D and v injected each other with heroin, V died Consent didn’t remove D’s liability and CoA held him as guilty

Question 28

R v Dalby 1982 (legal principle)

Answer 28

Where D’s actions are insufficient in satisfying rules of causation, D can’t be found guilty of constructive manslaughter. D was a drug addict, lawfully obtained prescription tablets, gave some to V, V swallowed many tablets, injected other studs and died. D was originally conviction but they were allowed on appeal

Question 29

R v Dias (Legal principle)

Answer 29

V self injecting a drug is considered an intervening act that would break the chain of causation D provided V with heroin, D & V injected themselves, V died but when D had recovered he tried to get him to hospital, D’s conviction of constructive manslaughter was quashed.

Question 30

R v rogers 2003

Answer 30

Applied tourniquet to v whilst v injected himself. CoA argued Tourniquet was a part of the unlawful act of administering heroin and was convicted

Question 31

R v Kennedy

Answer 31

D had supplied and filled a syringe, v died CoA held his conviction but HL quashed as the D hadn’t injected V and the V was a responsible adult aware of his choices

Question 32

What does constructive manslaughter sentencing differ on?

Answer 32

1.range of blameworthiness 2.Death may be unexpected 3.Objective test