Zoom-CRIMINAL Law-UoL

Review Chapter 7

Criminal Homicide
Homicide
(Black’s Law Dictionary, 1991)

-the killing of a human being by the act, procurement, or omission of another

-guilty if a person knowingly, recklessly or negligently causes the death of another
human being

Non-criminal homicide
(Black’s Law Dictionary, 1991)

-no moral or legal wrong

-legal judicial sentence
-self-defense
-kill by police apprehension

Criminal Homicide
(Black’s Law Dictionary, 1991)

-murder
-manslaughter

Life starts
(Dine et al, 2006- pg 205; Wilson, 2014- pg 363)

-a baby/infant/child born, separate from birth canal

-with/without umbilical cord attached
-capable of breathing through an independent circulatory system

-ie: breathe then cry; cry then breathe; cry and breathe-- doesn’t need to breathe
instantly-- doesn’t matter

-may need life support to live -- ie: premature infants --- doesn’t matter

-it is a FULL HUMAN BEING

*like a car
-car parts = parts function but limited, can’t drive; baby in womb functions but can’t fully
-a car= after manufactured- drives; baby/infant/child after birth breathe- full human

Eg: When considered not full human and homicide formula doesn’t apply to “non-
humans”

R v Bain (1834)
-mother indicted of murder after delivered child who didn’t breathe inside mother -
doctors testified baby died before delivery
-disposed child’s body in water bath nearby

-conviction:
-acquitted murder because foetus not “human” yet-- the “thing” breathed then died
inside mother but didn’t live and breathe outside of mother
-guilty of concealment

Life ends
(Dine et al, 2006- pg 207)

-full humans
-true death test = “irreversible death of brain stem”
-brain controls basic breathing
-brain dies, body dies

-ie: even if machines breathe, circulate, pump, ventilate on behalf of the brain..etc
-still-- legally dead (Wilson, 2014- pg 365)

R v Malcherek & Steel [1981]

-docs remove life support after patients had no brain functions
-Ds liable for factual & legal chains of causation
-docs not liable

R v Inglis
-son in vegetative state after accident with little brain function (alive)
-mother injected heroin (euthanasia) - compasssionate favour kill

-direct, affirmative kill- doesn’t matter if compassionate

-A/R - to kill (yes, he’s dead)
-M/R - intent to inject to kill & aware of future potential death (yes, she injected)
-Murder- unlawful killing human or cause GBH with awareness of future potential death

Conviction: murder; appeal: dismissed

Eg: Statute
-Infanticide Act 1938-- killing of child under 12 months related-- mother & her insanity
-Homicide Act 1957
-Infant life (preservation) Act 1929
Life ends
Not-human-yet --- Foetus, inside mother

Natural death
-body automatically aborts a dangerous pregnancy -- ie: conception outside uterus -
ectopic pregnancy

Crime death
-when D tampers with/without legal approval -- ie: Abortion Act 1967

R v Senior (1832)
-midwife= bad manual handling of pregnancy
-child malfunctioned inside, then expelled outside, died outside

-conviction: malpractice, manslaughter

R v West (1848)
-deliberately abort while child is inside mother
-expelled outside then died

-conviction: guilty
-killed unborn child (“it”) not killed a child (“human”)

-if unborn child is considered a full human in some countries, then of course all are
guilty of murder but English Law doesn’t see the same

-abort unborn child = cannot say “abort a man; abort a woman”

-173 yrs ago- literal interpretation still applies to this concept
-abortion is legal if done under a legal Act by registered Docs

Eg: Statute
-Infant life (preservation) Act 1929
-Abortion Act 1967

Consent
(Black’s Law Dictionary, 1991- pg 210)

-to agree, approve, comply, permit

-voluntary act of reason with deliberate agreement unclouded by fraud, duress (except
rape) or mistake

-life is sacred, no one is allowed to take it deliberately, affirmative A/R, M/R

R v Nicklinson (Wilson, 2014- pg 361)

-patient wanted euthanasia -- consented

-court denied
-appeal denied

-basis:
-life is sacred, your wife & Docs can’t help kill you out of compassion; we don’t care
about compassion, kill is kill-- they will be liable if they help you die out of sympathy --
sorry Mr. patient

*didn’t argue on basis of HR- lost case

R v Purdy (Wilson, 2012- pg 362)

-patient wanted euthanasia -- consented to avoid husband charged with offence

s.2(1)Suicide Act 1961

-court denied
-appeal denied
-H o L allowed

-basis: respect autonomy; HR Act 1998, s.8(1) ECHR

-infringe freedom rights
-consent allowed

*argued basis of HR- won case

R v Bland
-Docs removed life support
-Bland couldn’t/didn’t give consent
-Docs not liable:

-basis:
-Docs prolonged life
-Docs did their best; Docs don’t owe patient and can’t guarantee anything
-omit to provide life support
-let die
-not guilty b/c they are professionals (know what they are doing vs. someone who is
not a doc will be a criminal) & b/c Docs did in the best interest of patient (stop suffering)

Murder History
(J Higins, Journal of Medical Ethics, 1986-12, 8-12)
-origin of Homicide Act 1957
-Saxon and Norman times- few scattered population, low crimes
-punishment- payment by D and/or family; homicide was low, insane unheard

-11th cen: some crimes unforgivable/unamendable-- only compensated by death or

confiscate property
-only strict liability (no blameworthy degrees, no responsibility) -- insane Ds paid by
family/parents cared for them

-12th cen -King Henry II judge, jury below

-jury decides, King final approval of insanity; not guilty

-13th cen- Bracton --crime requires a will to harm

-child under 14 & madman -- both don’t have self awareness of wrong
-madman may have A/R - absolute intent to kill but no correspondence M/R - self
awareness

-17cen- insane don’t have family goes to prison for secure life

-18th cen- mental asylum

-Lord Bell of Braid (1845) first used term “diminished responsibility”

-Concept not popular- dormant until Gowers Commission 1949

-ambiguous between sane & insane; responsibility & irresponsibility
-fear jury too lenient

-group of barristers, legal MPs, legal interests -- formed chaired by Sir Lionel Health
-agreed keeping McNaughton rule, but created diminished responsibility
-introduced Commissions Report -- later became Act of Parliament--- Homicide Act
1957
--created because exception cases from insane Ds

-relate to Wilson, 368-- before 1957-- strict liability murder -- M/R or not ---

-Situation liability of murder

-constructive malice
-construct--to build or construct something from something small (car example)
-malice-- intent to crime without reasonable justification of crime

*the build up (constructive) of “ill will; evil, bad-- reckless- oblivious to the obvious”
(malice) to crime without justification--
-to build into a larger offence which is strict liability b/c malice itself doesn’t merit
enough punishment, but together constructive malice makes it more applicable (similar
to construct/build-up of recklessness- an increased degree of recklessness)

-no M/R- no intention to kill or have foresight -- simply by being involved in a crime
where there is a death -- is enough for conviction

R v Powell & another, R v English

-3 guys went to get drugs from a drug dealer
-drug dealer dead right at the door
-1 person shot him, no one knew who
-but--- by simply being involved in a crime --- at a wrong time & wrong people--- they
were convicted just the same--- didn’t matter if they shot or the guy next shot

Murder

-unlawful, kill, human-- 3 parts

-or -- cause GBH with awareness that there’s a potential 100 % success future
outcome (foresight of virtual certainty)

-Hyam -- based on before 1957

-convict-- (oblique intent)
-appeal- (direct intent)
-guilty both-- murder upheld

-b/c according to after 1957 we can say: Hyam deliberately exposed Vs to danger risk
of death [combine unlawful kill + and cause GBH (not or cause GBH)]

-Hyam opposite to Vickers, DPP v Smith, Cunningham

-Diplock was weak
-Hailsman- basis of strict liability of murder

Jury direction
-Standard -- when pure murder, clear evidence, extreme case

i) Did D stab with intent to kill?

ii) Did D intent to cause serious injury?

Woollin direction --
i) was D aware of the potential future outcome of death or serious injury?
ii) was D aware either those will happen 100%?
- jury say YES to both-- beyond a reasonable doubt = MURDER
7.1.1 A killing
A killing in this context follows the general template for all criminal offences. It requires an act or, in the case of murder and gross negligence manslaughter
but not constructive manslaughter, an omission in breach of duty.
Activity 7.1
Read Wilson, Section 13.3.A.2 ‘Unlawful killing’ and answer the following questions.
a. What are the three principal ingredients which make up a ‘killing’?
-killing, unlawful, human victim
b. If V refuses consent to a life-saving operation must his surgeon still perform the operation if she is to avoid a conviction for criminal homicide?

-no

-validates autonomy R v Purdy -

-Doc would assault V if doc operates-

c. Under what circumstances will an omission to prevent someone from dying amount to a ‘killing’? If you have forgotten, read Wilson, Section
4.5.D.3 ‘Circumstances giving rise to a duty to act: duty situations’.
-R v Gibbins & Proctor
-gross negligence
-fail duty
-omissions killing
-comission by omission

d. For the purpose of criminal homicide, when will D be considered to have caused V’s death? If you have forgotten, read Wilson, Section 5.5
‘Causation: the legal position’.

-D would have to be both factual & legal cause- chain of causation or liability is not broken
-but for
-chapter 3

Activity 7.2
If respect for autonomy explains the court’s approach in the latter case, how can the decision in Nicklinson be justified?

7.1.3 A human victim

Activity 7.3
Read Wilson, Section 13.3.A.3 ‘In being’ and then answer the following questions.
a. What test do the courts apply in deciding whether the victim’s life had begun at the time of the unlawful act in question?
-death test
-birth test

b. If D performs an abortion on herself which causes the child to be born alive but the child then dies because it is born prematurely, is a conviction
for murder or manslaughter possible?

-yes -guilty
-b/c-- criminal homicide- child human- born outside died outside

-illegal abortion on herself- not qualify Abortion Act 1967 -- R v West (1848), R v Senior (1832)
-charges for D while baby inside
johanne Legal09:52
Unlawful act is conduct of abortion by self
c. Do you agree with their Lordships’ conclusion in the A-G’s Reference (No 3 of 1994) case that, as a matter of principle, the intention necessary to
convict D of murder could not be transferred from the mother to the foetus and then back again to the living child? Why did the intention not
transfer between the mother and the child as soon as the child was born?
-
d. Would their Lordships’ conclusion have been different if the prosecution had been able to prove that D had stabbed V for the purpose of killing
the foetus rather than hurting V?
-still guilty
-m/r- intention - GBH
e. What test do the courts apply in deciding whether the victim’s life had already ended at the time of the unlawful act in question?
-test of life birth- foetus
-death test- mother after stab
-death test- infant death 120 days after
-
f. Under what circumstances will it not result in a conviction for criminal homicide if D removes a patient from a life-support machine?

-to save another patient who has better chance of survival

-economical

-professional not regular ppl

-death test - brain stem irreversible death

You might find it helpful to reread Wilson, Section 4.5.D.1 ‘Acts and omissions: what’s the difference?’ on this question as well as the above reading.

7.2.4 What has to be intended?

Activity 7.4
Read Wilson, Section 13.4.A.2 ‘The law post-1957’ and answer the following questions.

a. How have the courts defined ‘grievous bodily harm’?

-GBH- doesn’t need to be life threatening or serious- +awareness of risk of death-- possible jury infer -- Law Commission report 304
GBH is an offence committed when a person unlawfully and maliciously, either wounds another person or inflicts grievous
bodily harm upon another person.
-OAPA 1861
b. Is it a helpful definition?
-fluctuates - confusing
c. Who decides whether the harm intended by D is properly described as ‘grievous’?
-jury
d. Does ‘grievous bodily harm’ require the harm intended to be potentially life threatening?

-no

7.2.6 Reforming murder

Activity 7.5
The Law Commission has recommended that murder should be divided into two degrees of gravity (Law Com 304: Murder, manslaughter and
infanticide (2006)). You will find discussion of this and other reform proposals in Wilson, Section 13.4.B ‘Conclusions: a rational mens rea for
murder’, which you should now read.

What reforms are advocated here?

Do you agree that murder should include certain forms of reckless killing?
Voluntary Manslaughter
(Guide, 66)

-Voluntary: intended or almost intended to do crime -- by choice

-Manslaughter: reckless killing - oblivious to the obvious

Voluntary manslaughter= MITIGATION (to mitigate: not deserving but still can accommodate the reduction of punishment)
base on justifiable legal provocation context

Provocation (pg67 Study guide)

1. Subjective
-self-control; internal self-management

--ie: when faced with extreme unacceptable external provocation (by any standards) that pushes D to the brink of no
return

2. Objective
-what others with same status, age, gender..etc with normal acceptable societal standard of self-restraint and tolerance
would do/react when “walking in D’s shoes”

--ie: when faced with the same extreme external unacceptable provocation (by any standards) that pushes D to the brink
of no return

3. Duration/time between someone provoking →→→ the killing

-can be short, can be long, doesn’t matter as long as lost of control (LoC) is a defence basis
(not intoxication, not baby crying, not wife nagging)

-doesn’t need to be an immediate burst; can happen over time (“slow-burn)

-but.. recommended-- short time lapse is better than long

Coroners and Justice Act 2009 s.54

D NOT guilty of murder if:

1. a) act/omit act to the killing from LoC (not deliberate a/r, not deliberate m/r)

b) LoC has a qualifying trigger

[justifiable trigger: self-defence from fear, extreme gravity of insults, abuse, rape, multilation, threat...etc --( not:
“well, I plainly don’t like her”)---also D feels extremely self-deserved of justice; self-justified; D feels is the right
thing he/she did of the crime]

R v Bowyer
-robbed his friend (V); his friend discovered and hurled insults about Bowyer’s gf
-Bowyer in heat of rage killed V
-Bowyer played the “victim” after, blaming that V started it and that he was the victim

-conviction: guilty
-because Bowyer was the robber -- he is a criminal already, who is he to blame V
-his defence of LoC dismissed

(if he’d argued based on him leaving the apartment and not rob but V kept trying to kill him so in self-defence he
had to fight back--- maybe he could have had that chance to win his case)
Subjective (with legal justified context)

R v Clinton
-s.55(6) sexual jealousy, romantic breakups, possessive anxiety/anger invalid

-wife cheated and verbally abused D - name-calling, derogatory insults add on top of her unfaithful acts
-D killed wife - LoC
-this context of legal qualification, justifiable defence of wife provoking D to kill makes the law bend with context
-D also feels what he did was right, that he deserved that justice

Objective LoC
-s5.54(1)(c) -what others with same status, age, gender..etc with normal acceptable societal standard of self-restraint and
tolerance would do/react when “walking in D’s shoes”

-if LoC is justifiable by normal standards then it is a valid defence --- abuse, rape, death threat cause LoC

-if LoC is unjustifiable by normal standards then it is an invalid defence ---

Eg:
“i don’t like her culture, she smells so i killed her” --- AND D has a bad personality; character flaw; anger issues-
easily insulted by everything, from everyone; intoxicated, possessive, obsessive jealousy

R v Asmelash
-D killed V while intoxicated

-intoxication is not a defence -- D not caused by extreme gravity of external provocations; not self-deserving of
justice either -- just plain drunk and killed

-no LoC due to external provocations

-objective view- anyone with D’s same age, gender, status ...etc would know better
(-character flaw-- need alcohol therapy or some help from drinking rather than blame LoC on someone else)

-convicted

Evidence & procedure

(Guide, 71; Coroners and Justice Act 2009)

-Jury collects enough evidence to accept defence unless prosecution can disprove it (beyond reasonable doubt that is
is not a defence)
-Judge allows defence from sufficient evidence -- a chance to use as defence

-valid: (with proper context) threat, rape, multilation, verbal abuse...etc --- ie: extreme gravity context leads to
extreme LoC

-invalid: (without proper context) obsession, nagging, jealousy, infidelity, intoxication --- ie: character flaw unable
to control self like common ppl

-exception --kill in rage or with invalidity element(s) above--- possible defence -- “diminished responsibility” --
insanity
**context, context, context

Diminished Responsibility
(Black’s Law dictionary, 1991)

-Diminish- to reduce, to minimize, to decrease

-Responsibility- ability to be respond to do things that are required/expected/accounted

-a general reduction of responsibility

Diminished responsibility
-lack of capacity to achieve state of mind requisite for commission of crime; partial insanity; mitigate punishment
-some jurisdictions include- extreme mental incapacity, extreme low intelligence -- reduce murder 1 to manslaughter

Coroners and Justice Act 2009

-changed s.2 Homicide Act 1957

s.52(1A) ---objective views from others about abnormal mental function that affects D’s ability-

a) to understand the nature of D’s conduct

b) to form a rational judgement
c) to exercise self-control

Old law (Homicide Act 1957)

-D is insane because D said so (self-certified insanity)
-battered women’s syndrome -- R v Ahluwalia
-premenstrual syndrome -- R v (Smith (Sandie) [1982]
-ADHD
-intoxication -- R v Dowd
** but -- chance acceptable if combine intoxication with a mental dysfunction condition -- R v Dietschmann

*exception -- R v Wood, R v Stewart

-chronic alcoholism medical condition- irresistible alcohol craving and body reduced ability to function/control self
-involuntary intoxication (drunkenness)
-can be ground for defence if it’s inherent (natural medical condition D can’t control) to D

New law (amended by Coroners and Justice Act 2009)

-D is insane because doctors said so (require medical evidence and certification)
-both defence and prosecution agrees -- valid defence of insanity
-prosecution oppose -- need docs to investigate
**DON’T USE PROVOCATION AFTER 2009 AMENDED --- USE LOST OF CONTROL (loc)

R v Brennan

*require-- good explanation (context) for killing

*require-- substantial impairment of normal capability (jury dependent of threshold of what is impairment level)

7.3.7 Second qualifying trigger

 Activity 7.6
Read Wilson, Section 13.5.A.2 ‘The elements of the defence’, Section (a) ‘The subjective element’ and answer the following questions.
a. A calls B a paedophile. B loses self-control and kills A. Assuming this insult constitutes circumstances of ‘an extremely grave character’, under
what circumstances, if any, would B’s sense of being seriously wronged not be justifiable?
-not-justifiable- no, b/c overreaction; crime not worth penalty
-2009 Coroners Justice Act s.55(4)
b. V imprisons X in order to prevent X from executing his plan to harm Y. X kills V in indignant reaction to the loss of freedom. Is the defence of loss
of self-control available to X?

-no- b/c need to be whether X’s -not justifiable

-justiable- b/c X had no AR -no conduct; had to kill in self-defence
-subjective provocation -- objective LoC is invalid---
-needs evidence

Kossam Mupezeni09:50
"Quote fro Guide-Provocation still applies in relation to killings preceeding 2009---- similar in structure to the defence
which replaces it, namely, loss of control".
faizan Khaliq09:55
Provocation is no more valid
Loss of self control is valid
Vladimir Reznik09:58
Section 56 Coroners and Justice Act 2009 abolishes the common law defence of Provocation and replaces by sec 54
and 55
Vladimir Reznik10:19
Diminished responsibility
S. 2 of Homicide Act substituted by s. 52 of CJA.
3 elements:
1 Abnormality of mental functioning 2. from recognized medical conditions, 3. which caused or was a significant
contributory factor explaining the D’s conduct / action.

7.3.10 Sexual infidelity

Activity 7.7
Eve discovers her husband, Adam, having sex with Ruth, her daughter and his step-daughter. Eve loses self-control and kills Adam. Is the defence of
loss of self-control excluded under s.55(6)?

-(LoC) loss of self-control- undignified by Adam Eve lost it

-not protecting a minor we don’t know
-jealousy is not valid under the law
-not convicted of murder - probably success may not
-s.55 6(c) - reason of infidelity not valid
-clean record of D

7.3.15 Recognised mental condition

 ►Arrested or retarded mental development.
►Depression (Gittens [1984] QB 698).
►Bipolar (Inglis [2010] EWCA Crim 2637).
►Paranoid schizophrenia (Sutcliffe, The Times, 30 April 1981).
►Brain damage.
►Psychopathy (Byrne [1960] 2 QB 396).
►Paranoid personality disorder (Martin (Anthony) [2001] EWCA Crim 2245).
►Postnatal depression (Reynolds [1988] Crim LR 679).

*OLD LAW* - MENTAL HEALTH ILLNESS --

Activity 7.8
Read Wilson, Section 13.6.B ‘Statutory definition’ and D ‘Overlap with loss of self-control’ and answer the following question.
Do the defences of loss of self-control and diminished responsibility adequately address the problem of battered partners who kill their abuser such
as Ahluwalia?

-follow Wilson - don’t use it-- long term

-contrast view, compare --- alternative

-self-control and diminished responsibility

-convicted- accumulated abuse- 1992 murder-- defence of provocation failed -- old doctrine failed

-loss of self control doesn’t need to be sudden

-common law to statute law 1992-2009

-appeal- voluntary manslaughter

Am I ready to move on?

Are you ready to move on to the next part of this chapter? You are if – without referring to the module guide or Wilson – you can answer the following
questions.
1. Define murder.
2. Explain what a ‘living person’ is for the purpose of criminal homicide.
3. Explain the relevance of consent in cases of criminal homicide.
4. State the mens rea for murder.
5. Explain when the Woollin direction should be given to the jury and when it should not.
6. Explain what grievous bodily harm means and who decides whether harm inflicted is grievous bodily harm.
7. Explain the difference between provocation and loss of self-control.
8. State the elements of loss of self-control.
9. State and explain the two types of ‘qualifying trigger’.
10. Explain what the respective role of judge and jury is in deciding whether D is able to rely on a defence.
11. State the elements of diminished responsibility.
12. State six recognised mental conditions which can ground the defence.
13. Explain what ‘abnormality of mental functioning’ means.
14. Explain how, if at all, intoxication is relevant in assessing whether someone is able to rely on a defence.

7.4.4 Actus reus: constructive manslaughter.

Activity 7.9
Read Wilson, Section 13.7.B.1 ‘The elements of constructive manslaughter’, Section (b) ‘Dangerous act’ and 13.7.C ‘Manslaughter by breach of
duty’ and answer the following questions.
a. Why was Slingsby not guilty of constructive manslaughter?

b. Lamb shot dead his friend. Why was he not guilty of constructive manslaughter? Could he have been guilty of gross negligence manslaughter?
 Activity 7.10
Lord Atkin said in Andrews: ‘There is an obvious difference in the law of manslaughter between doing an unlawful act and doing a lawful act with a
degree of carelessness which the legislature makes criminal’.

In other words, you cannot charge constructive manslaughter if the only criminal wrong committed by the defendant is speeding, driving while
intoxicated, dangerous driving or driving without due care.

Now invent an examination question in which it would be right to charge constructive manslaughter arising from a piece of dangerous driving. If you
can do this, you have gone a long way towards understanding constructive manslaughter. Read Wilson, Section 13.7.B.1 (b)(ii) ‘The unlawfulness of
an act must be constituted independently of its dangerousness’, if you have difficulty but try it yourself first!

7.4.6 The criminal act must be dangerous

Activity 7.11
The principle in Church should be committed to memory. It is brief and very helpful. Now try applying it to the following problem.
Jack lets the tyres down on Jill’s car. Jill does not notice this when she returns to the car and drives off. She soon notices the problem, panics and
brakes suddenly. Humpty, who is driving too closely to stop in time, crashes into the back of Jill’s car, killing her. Is Jack guilty of constructive
manslaughter?

To answer this question, your job is to analyse the facts to ensure that all the elements of the offence are present, including in particular the
dangerousness requirement as defined by Edmund Davies LJ in Church.

Activity 7.12
Would it make any difference if D had pointed: (a) a real gun that was not loaded; or (b) a real gun that was loaded? In the latter case, would it make
any difference in Dawson if the gun toter did not have his finger on the trigger? Again, to answer this question you must apply the dicta in Church.

7.4.8 Mens rea

Activity 7.13
Read Wilson, Section 13.7.B.1 (b) ‘Dangerous act’ and answer the following questions.
a. Read the discussion of DPP v Newbury and Jones (1977). Is it necessary for the prosecution to prove that the defendants foresaw harm resulting
from their criminal action?

b. What was the relevance of the defendants’ age in this case?

c. Do you think the defendants’ age should have been taken into account in deciding whether they were guilty of the crime?

d. What exactly was the crime which formed the substance of the charge and subsequent conviction for constructive manslaughter?

e. Read R v F [2015] EWCA Crim 351. Does this case add anything new to the law as propounded in DPP v Newbury and Jones?

f. What was the important point of law proposed by the Court of Appeal in Jennings (1990)?

g. Under what circumstances, if any, can a person be guilty of constructive manslaughter for having caused V to commit suicide?
 7.4.11 Duty of care
Activity 7.14
Read Wilson, Section 13.7.C ‘Manslaughter by breach of duty’ and Section 4.5.D.3 ‘Circumstances giving rise to a duty to act: duty situations’ and
find authorities for, and illustrations, of the duty of care in the following contexts.
a. Trades (e.g. building, plumbing, electricity).
b. Driving a car (motor manslaughter) or crossing a road.
c. Caring roles (e.g. parents).
d. Carers.
e. Professionals (e.g. doctors, nurses, dentists).
f. The service industry (e.g. hotels, restaurants, sporting venues).
g. Contractual roles.
h. Other non-specific activities.

7.4.12 Breach of duty

Activity 7.15
a. Read Wilson, Chapter 13 ‘Homicide’ and identify, make notes on and commit to memory all the Law Commission’s major reform proposals
concerning murder and manslaughter. Do you agree with them?

b. Invent for yourself an examination problem which involves a person committing each of the three forms of manslaughter which could not be
charged as one of the other forms (you will find reckless manslaughter the most difficult). Below is an example in relation to constructive
manslaughter.

Constructive manslaughter: A hits B with a single punch to the jaw. B dies as a result of a hidden weakness in his skull which implodes under the
force. What crime has A committed?

Now invent your own.

Am I ready to move on?

Are you ready to move on to the next chapter? You are if – without referring to the module guide or Wilson – you can answer the following questions.
1. Identify the elements of reckless manslaughter.
-Recklessness: nonetheless goes into performing the act knowing the consequences- Recklessness

RvG

is a case law
subjective awareness of the risk, whether that risk is as to the result or the circumstances. AND

the risk was, in all the circumstances, unreasonable for the defendant to take

-Manslaughter: Unlawful killing of a human being without malice aforethought; voluntary,involuntary; partial defence to murder

-Reckless manslaughter:
Hyam
Lidar
LIDAR is case for reckless manslaughter

Hyam was used when establishing Mens Rea

2. Identify the elements of constructive manslaughter. -- no m/r needed

-unlawful
-dangerous
-causation
-death
R v Goodfellow
R v Larkin

3. In relation to constructive manslaughter, explain what the mens rea is, and if it is necessary that D foresaw harm – and if so what kind of harm
– to V by what D was doing.
R v Dawson
Mens Rea of murder is not necessary but Mens Rea of the crime is necessary- like theft, burglary

4. Identify the elements of gross negligence manslaughter.

-duty of care
-breach of duty of care
-causation
-death
R v Adomako
foresight not necessary

5. Explain what the relevant function of judge and jury is in relation to gross negligence manslaughter.
-judge decides duty of care
-jury decides if duty of care was breached
R v Evans

6. Answer the question as to what D must be grossly negligent of.

-D should be negligent of high risk of death

7. Explain the difference in coverage between the various forms of manslaughter.

Murder-
Voluntary Manslaughter with defences
-LoC
-Diminished responsibility
-Suicide pact

Involuntary
-Reckless man
-Gross negligent man
-Constructive man

8. Explain their points of overlap.

-overlap-- similar that links together and differ liability
9. Outline the major Law Commission proposals for reforming criminal homicide.
-reformed murder: degrees: 1st direct intention, 2nd degree: indirect intention; manslaughter
-defences: provoke into loss of self control
-sentencing: 1 for murder