Law 03 Short notes

R v Lowe 1973

Facts

D a man of low intelligence, was alleged to have neglected his baby daughter by failing to summon medical assistance when she became ill. The child died some 10 days later of dehydration and gross emaciation. The woman with whom D had been living had four other children and was of subnormal intelligence. D stated that he had told her to take the child to the doctor, but she had not done so because she was afraid that the child would be taken into care.

The defendant was charged with Unlawful Act manslaughter.

Held: Phillimore LJ was of the opinion that there needs to be a higher degree of culpability or blameworthiness for crimes committed through omission, than for crimes where there has been a positive act.

A clear distinction was to be drawn in relation to an act of commission and an act of omission; mere neglect, even though deliberate, which caused injury to a child’s health and resulted in its death, did not constitute unlawful Act manslaughter where accused had failed to foresee the consequences of his neglect.

  1. What legal duty of care does Lowe have to his daughter?
  1. What is Phillmore LJ saying about omissions that cause crimes? Why do you think he says this?
  1. What cannot be regarded as an unlawful Act according to the final paragraph of Phillmore’s judgment?
  2. What crime should Lowe have been charged with? Was he found guilty of unlawful Act Manslaughter?

R v Lamb 1967

Facts

Two boys were playing with a revolver. There were two bullets in the chamber but neither were opposite the barrel. The two boys believed that this meant it would not fire. One of the boys pointed the gun at the other and fired. As he pulled the trigger the chamber turned and the gun went off killing the boy. The other was charged with unlawful act manslaughter.

  1. Define Assault?
  1. Explain why the D was not guilty of an assault?
  1. Explain why the V did not apprehend an assault?
  1. Why was Lamb’s conduct dangerous?
  1. Explain using causation why Lamb caused the V’s unlawful killing?

R v Ariobeke 1988

Facts:

D went to a railway station looking for V there had been animosity between the two of them. There was evidence that V feared serious violence if D found him. D was standing on a platform looking into train carriages but made no other action towards V. V left his train and was electrocuted trying to cross the tracks. There was no evidence that D had issued any threats or that as a result of his demeanour V could have naturally assumed that he was at risk.

  1. What unlawful Act (non fatal offence) would charge A with? What is the definition of this offence?
  1. Explain whether D can be proved beyond doubt to have undertaken a non fatal offence? Explain.
  2. Can A be found guilty of UAM? Explain.

R v Church 1965

Facts

Sylvia Notts mocked the appellant's ability to satisfy her sexually and slapped his face. A fight developed during which the appellant knocked her unconscious. He tried to wake her for 30 mins to no avail. He believed she was dead and threw her body into a river. Medical evidence revealed that the cause of death was drowning and she therefore had been alive when he threw her into the river. The trial judge made several errors in his direction to the jury and in the event they convicted of manslaughter rather than murder. The appellant appealed on the grounds of misdirection.

Edmunds Davies LJ Held to be guilty of UAM must be dangerous: “the unlawful act must be such as all sober and reasonable people would inevitably recognise must subject the other person to, at least, the risk of some harm resulting there from, albeit not serious harm."

  1. What type of test is dangerous? Explain.
  1. What is the least serious non fatal offence which could be regarded as unlawful act by Church?
  1. Explain whether or not D’s unlawful Act was dangerous?
  1. Looking at the facts of Church and the test for dangerous why do the P often try and prove the least serious criminal offence?
    R v Dawson 1985

Facts:

The defendant and two other men carried out an attempted robbery at a petrol station. The cashier at the petrol station was a 60 year old man who, unknown to the defendants, suffered from a heart disease. Dawson had pointed a replica handgun at the victim and his partner had banged a pick-axe handle on the counter. Money was demanded, but the victim pressed the alarm button and the defendants fled empty handed. Shortly afterwards the victim collapsed and died from a heart attack.

R v Watson 1989

Facts: The appellant smashed a window and broke into the house of an 87 year old man, Harold Moyler. Moyler went to investigate and the appellant shouted abuse at him and ran off. The police arrived and Moyler suffered a heart attack and died 90 minutes after the initial break in.

  1. Do you think the reasonable bystander in Dawson would foresee the V suffering a heart attack? Explain
  1. Do you think the reasonable bystander in Watson would foresee the V suffering a heart attack? Explain
  1. When should the jury be able to take into account the V’s medical conditions when considering whether or not the D’s actions were dangerous, looking at both of these cases?

R v Mitchell 1983

Facts

The appellant tried to jump the queue at a Post Office. An elderly man took issue with the appellant's behaviour and challenged him. The appellant hit the old man and pushed him. The man fell back onto others in the queue including an elderly lady who fell and broke her leg. She later died. The appellant was convicted of manslaughter and appealed contending that the unlawful act was not directed at the woman.

  1. What are the rules for transferred malice?
  2. Do these rules apply to the AR or MR of the offence? Explain
  3. What non fatal offence was committed by Mitchell and to whom? Define the offence
  1. Explain why Mitchell satisfies the non fatal offence in (3) on the elderly lady?
  2. Why can this be seen as a harsh decision on Mitchell thinking about his actual intentions?

R v Le Brun

Facts

Defendant had, without intending any serious harm, hit his wife on the chin during an argument outside their house. She fell unconscious and he dragged her away in order to avoid detection. In doing so, he caused her head to hit the pavement hard enough to fracture her skull. She died as a result and the defendant was convicted of manslaughter. Upholding the verdict, the Court of Appeal held that although the original act was not the direct cause of death, that act and the cause of her death were both part of ‘the same sequence of events

  1. Harm is based on what the RM would foresee as harm in the circumstances. What evidence exists in this case to show the RM would foresee harm?
  2. What test for UAM does Le Brun help define?

DPP v Newbury & Jones(1976)

Facts

Two 15 year old boys threw a paving slab off a railway bridge as a train approached. The paving slab went through a glass window on the cab of the train and struck the guard killing him. The boys were convicted of manslaughter. The Court of Appeal dismissed the boys' appeals.

Held:

There is no requirement that the defendant foresees that some harm will result from his action.

  1. Harm in the dangerous test is what type of test?
  2. Why could the dangerous test be classed as harsh on Newbury & Jones?
  3. Give one benefit of the dangerous test using the approach in question (1)?

R v Goodfellow 1988

Facts

The appellant had been harassed by two men and wished to move from his council accommodation. In order to get re-housed he set fire to his house making it look as if it had been petrol bombed. Unfortunately his wife, son and son's girlfriend all died in the fire.

1.What basic offence did Goodfellow commit when setting fire to his house?

2.Explain how the offence in (1) can be regarded as being dangerous by the reasonable man?

3.Does the unlawful Act for UAM have to be a non-fatal offence? Explain.

R v Shohid 2003

Facts

The defendant was one of a group of men who attacked the victim and his friend on the platform of a railway station. The victim and his friend were forced onto the railway track, and the friend was able to climb back onto the platform. The victim, however, was prevented from doing so by some of the attackers, not including the defendant, and was killed by a train. The D’s tried to argue that as the V’s friend managed to climb back up onto the platform it wasn’t their fault v couldn’t do this.

1.Were the D’s the substantial and operating cause of death? Explain

2.What was the main cause of death?

3.Is legal causation established in this case thinking about the test in R v Pagett? Explain

R v Kennedy [2007] HL (full case report)

Facts
The appellant prepared a solution of heroin filled a syringe and handed it to Mr Bosque, a fellow resident at a hostel. Bosque injected himself and died. The appellant was convicted of supplying a class A drug and Unlawful Act manslaughter. On the second appeal the Court of Appeal certified the following question of law:

"When is it appropriate to find someone guilty of manslaughter where that person has been involved in the supply of a class A controlled drug, which is then freely and voluntarily self-administered by the person to whom it was supplied, and the administration of the drug then causes his death?"

Held:

The appeal was allowed and the appellant's conviction for manslaughter quashed.

“It is possible to imagine factual scenarios in which two people could properly be regarded as acting together to administer an injection. But nothing of the kind was the case here. As in R v Dalby and R v Dias the appellant supplied the drug to the deceased, who then had a choice, knowing the facts, whether to inject himself or not. The heroin was, as the certified question correctly recognises, self-administered, not jointly administered. The appellant did not administer the drug. Nor, for reasons already given, did the appellant cause the drug to be administered to or taken by the deceased.

The answer to the certified question is: "In the case of a fully-informed and responsible adult, never".

1.According to Kennedy when does the D’s role in helping the V take an illegal drug end?

2.At what point is there a break in the chain of causation in this type of case?

3.When will there be no break in the chain of causation in this type of case?

1