• Save
Synoptic revision booklet 2011
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Synoptic revision booklet 2011

on

  • 2,157 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
2,157
Views on SlideShare
2,130
Embed Views
27

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
1

2 Embeds 27

http://www.slideshare.net 26
url_unknown 1

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
  • Very useful thank you even though we don't do the OCR spec.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Synoptic revision booklet 2011 Synoptic revision booklet 2011 Document Transcript

  • 2011 Synoptic PaperInvoluntary Manslaughter Synoptic Paper Revision Guide 2011 Involuntary Manslaughter Basic Set Up of the ExamTime: 1 ½ hoursQuestion Synopsis of one of the eight cases in the booklet  What did it decide?One:  How far does this confirm existing law?  How far has the law developed since?  Link to at least one other case and the sources!Question One essay based on a quote from one of the sources, critically  Put the quote into contextTwo evaluating that area of the law  Define and evaluate the development of the area.  Law reform Save this question for last!  Produce a balanced argument.  Link to sources!Question Three problem questions which require application of the law  Locate the definitions in the sourcesThree: to the scenario, explanation and conclusion.  3 critical points in each problem and a relevant case  Conclude
  • 2011 Synoptic PaperInvoluntary Manslaughter Speed Test (1) Speed Test (2) Identify the sources and line numbers of the following Identify the sources and line numbers of the following1. Where will you find the definition of gross negligence manslaughter? 1. Which source talks about the problems of murder, and their impact on manslaughter?2. Which two sources mention the circularity argument? 2. Where will you find the definition of dangerousness for CAM?3. Where are the facts of Goodfellow? 3. Where is the role of the jury in GNM identified?4. Which source(s) mention the overlap between recklessness and gross negligence 4. Where will you fine the facts of Cato?5. Where will you find reference to proposals for reform? 5. Name one case from the sources which follows an earlier precedent.6. Identify two sources which discuss constructive act manslaughter? 6. Name one case from the sources which overrules an earlier precedent.7. Name three sources which discuss Adomako 7. Identify two problems with CAM, and their location in the sources8. Where will you find the view of the House of Lords on Rogers? 8. Identify two problems with GNM and their location in the sources9. Where will you find the certified question in Kennedy? 9. Which source discusses the problem of causation?10. Where will you find the grounds for appeal in Lidar? 10. Where are the facts of Lidar to be found?
  • 2011 Synoptic PaperInvoluntary Manslaughter Voluntary Specific Assumption Relationship Neighbour More than... Contractual Duties? Civil Basis Duty of Care Not fixed Key Case? Areas not list... covered in civil? Recent developments Gross Negligence Breach causing death Risk of death or Serious injury Health and welfare? Death or serious injury How far must they fall? So far below the standard that they are Adomako ‘beyond mere liable compensation’ ‘degree of carelessness found criminal View slide
  • 2011 Synoptic PaperInvoluntary Manslaughter Type of Harm? Aimed at another Must be ‘criminal’ Obvious to the Aimed at reasonable person Positive act not property omission Dangerous Illegal Act “Such that all sober and reasonable person recognise as causing some harm” Old Law Constructive The fact that it is unlawful and causes the death is sufficient. Act Intention to complete the illegal act ‘Cause’ the death tourniquet One particular problem: s.23 Offences Against the Person 1861 “administer” preparing Giving drugs drugs Injecting drugs View slide
  • 2011 Synoptic PaperInvoluntary Manslaughter Summaries of SourcesSource 1: Extract adapted from the judgment of Edmund-Davies LJ in R v Church [1966] 1 QB 59This source comes from the Court of Appeal, and focuses on the test for dangerousness in constructive actmanslaughter. It points out that there has been inconsistency in the test for dangerousness, and that this is becauseof issues with the question of whether it requires a mens rea or not. Having decided that it did, it contains the testfor dangerousness in lines 31-33.Source 2: Extract Adapted from the judgement of Lord Mackay LC in Adomako [1995] 1 AC 171 HLThis source comes from the House of Lords, and focuses on the definition of Gross Negligence Manslaughter. Itconfirms that the civil law of negligence is used to establish if D has breached a duty, but that the ‘criminal’ nature ofthe breach is left to the jury to decide as it is a fact based decision. He also acknowledges the ‘circularity’ problem ofthis definition (that it makes negligence in fact and in law the same thing), and confirms that the risk must be ofdeath. A definition is to be found in lines 20-22.Source Three: Extract adapted from Smith & Hogan Criminal Law 10th Edition 2002. Professor J. C. Smith Butterworths Lexis Nexis Pp. 398-9 and 382Professor Smith looks at all the types of involuntary manslaughter and what they have in common. In addition, heargues that because the definition of mens rea in murder is so vague, that manslaughter is also uncertain. There isalso a problem as to when involuntary manslaughter begins, because its definition is so vague. However, he doespoint out that the element of unlawfulness, which is common to all types of involuntary manslaughter, has become alittle more clearly defined recently.
  • 2011 Synoptic PaperInvoluntary ManslaughterSource 4: Extract adapted from the judgement of Evans LJ in R v Lidar [2000] 4 Archbold News.This judgment from the Court of Appeal concerns Reckless Act Manslaughter. This case appears to allow insubjective reckless act manslaughter, basing it on words of Lord Atkin in Adomako, where he said that the wordreckless could be used ‘in its ordinary connotation’ to instruct a jury on gross negligence manslaughter. It is a bitconfused, however, as to whether reckless act is a separate category of manslaughter, or a different way ofinstructing the jury on gross negligence (lines 41-43).Source 5: Extract adapted from Criminal Law, 9th Edition 2009 Michael Jefferson. Pearson Longmans pp. 496, 499, 500, 507 and 515This source covers all three types of involuntary manslaughter, and focuses on the problems of each. Itacknowledges the problem of Lidar (whether subjectively reckless manslaughter is a separate category) but arguesthat it sets the risk level too high, meaning that the other two categories are easier to prove. It also points out that‘gross negligence’ has never really been defined which has led to inconsistency in jury decisions. He goes on toacknowledge the circular argument. It also debates whether CAM is too harsh – balancing the liability of D for adeath he did not foresee against the need to punish for killing another. It also acknowledges that there are caseswhich could be either type (Goodfellow).Source 6: Extract adapted from case Notes. Constructive Manslaughter – causation. Professor Paul Dobson. Student Law Review. Volume 53. Spring 2008 pp. 19-20This source focuses on the House of Lords decision in Kennedy No2, and its impact on the causation test forConstructive Act Manslaughter. The voluntary and free actions of V in injecting themselves broke the chain ofcausation, rather than forming a joint activity as the lower court had decided. It confirms the essential elements ofCAM (lines 15-17) and summarises the previous relevant cases. Most importantly, it explores the decision of thecourt in Rogers and the response of the court in the current case. Finally, it proposes reforms to the law which wouldaddress the particular issue of supplying drugs and liability for manslaughter.
  • 2011 Synoptic PaperInvoluntary Manslaughter What could show up? Potential Question Ones:1. Briefly explain the importance of R v Church to the development of the law of constructive act manslaughter2. Examine whether the precedent in R v Kennedy No 2 lead to justice or injustice.3. Discuss the extent to which the precedent in R v Lidar represents a development in the law on involuntary manslaughter.4. Discuss the ways in which Goodfellow developed the law on involuntary manslaughter. Other cases: Andrews v DPP R v Bateman R v Cato Potential Question Two Titles:Discuss the argument that with relation to involuntary manslaughter “The element of unlawfulness is less elusive today thanwhen Lord Aitkin spoke” *Source 3, line 11+“I entirely agree with the view that the circumstances to which a charge of involuntary manslaughter may apply are so variousthat it is unwise to attempt to categorise or detail specimen directions” *Source 5, Lines 20-1]Discuss how accurately the above statement reflects how judges have developed the law on involuntary manslaughter.“For many years the courts have used the words recklessness and gross negligence to describe the fault required for involuntarymanslaughter… without any clear definition of either term.” Source 5, lines 24-5Analyse the extent to which this statement accurately reflects the development of the law on involuntary manslaughter“Gross negligence is a sufficient, but not necessarily the only fault for manslaughter. To some extent manslaughter by overtrecklessness, conscious risk-taking still survives.” *Source 5 lines 29-30]Discuss how far this statement reflects recent development in the law on gross negligence manslaughter.“The term gross negligence was never clearly defined in the cases” *Source 5, Line 11+Analyse the extent to which this reflects the development of the law on gross negligence manslaughter.“[CAM] is harsh in its effect on the accused,… [but] ‘Given the finality of death and the absolute unacceptability of killing anotherhuman being, it is not amiss to preserve the test which promises the greatest measure of deterrence, provides the penalconsequences of the offence are not disproportionate.” [Source 5, lines 28-31]Evaluate how accurately this statement reflects the development of Constructive Act manslaughter by the courts“The main criticism of unlawful act manslaughter is that it is a serious crime, yet a person is guilty of it if a reasonable personmight foresee that some harm might occur” *Source 5, lines 37-8]Discuss how accurately the above statement reflects how judges have developed the law on constructive act manslaughter.“[Involuntary manslaughter] includes all varieties of homicide which are unlawful at common law but committed without maliceaforethought. It is not surprising, therefore that the fault required takes more than one form” *Source 3, lines 1-3]Discuss how accurately the above statement reflects how judges have developed the law on involuntary manslaughter.
  • 2011 Synoptic PaperInvoluntary Manslaughter Section Three QuestionsDiscuss whether a conviction for manslaughter is possible in each of the following situations:(a) Francis has been looking after his elderly uncle by visiting him once a day and taking him his meals. He decides not to go one evening as he has been invited to a party. Francis finds his uncle dead the next day.(b) While waiting on the edge of the platform for a train to take them to college, Bill and Ben started to argue loudly. Becoming angry, Ben punches Bill who falls into Daisy who fell in front of the incoming train, and was killed.(c) Sarah and James find an old, rusty handgun. James tells Sarah that it’s perfectly safe as the trigger has rusted up and can’t be pulled. She laughs and picks it up, pointing it at James. He shouts, “Come on then – or are you too chicken?” She pulls the trigger, which moves, firing the gun and Adam is killed.Discuss whether a conviction for manslaughter is possible in each of the following situations:(a) Brett has a heroin habit. Brett’s friend, Chesney, fills a syringe with a large quantity of heroin. Brett is already too drunk on alcohol to inject himself so, at Brett’s request, Chesney injects Brett with the drug. Brett dies from an overdose of heroin.(b) Dalvinder supplies Ethan with several tablets of an illegal drug. Ethan then decides to take a large number of these tablets in one go. Ethan suffers from a massive reaction to the drug and dies as a result.(c) Fontella, a care assistant on night shift in a nursing home, is so engrossed by a book that she is reading that she ignores the buzzer from the room of a patient, Gladys, who has a serious heart condition. Gladys is actually suffering a heart attack at the time and she is found dead the next morning.Discuss whether a conviction for manslaughter is possible in each of the following situations:(a) Louis, who is very bored, decides to start throwing eggs at passing cars. Three of the eggs hit Anna’s windscreen causing her to lose control and crash, killing her.(b) Dr Spock is on the last hour of his 12 hour shift. Meg comes in complaining of pain in her stomach. Dr Spock is in a hurry to leave so doesn’t give her a proper examination, and fails to spot the poisoning which kills her two hours later. Later tests reveal that a simple blood test would have revealed the poisoning.(c) Jane is determined to get her family a new home, as the flat they are in is too small. She sets a fire. Bob, her elderly 84 year old neighbour, is coming home at his usual time when he sees his flat on fire and, in shock, has a heart attack and dies.
  • 2011 Synoptic PaperInvoluntary Manslaughter Reforms to the Law on Involuntary ManslaughterSource Links: Source 6, lines 41-45; Source 4, lines 22-3Law Commission Report on Involuntary Manslaughter No. 237 (1996) What did they  the abolition of the offence of involuntary manslaughter; recommend?  replace it with two new offences of “reckless killing” and “killing by gross carelessness” Why did they One label for such a wide range of harm is unworkable, and causes huge problems especially in recommend it? sentencing. Wrong in principle to convict D of causing a death if they only were aware of a risk of injury. If his or her conduct causes the death of another; Reckless killing means... he or she is aware of a risk that his or her conduct will cause death or serious injury; and it is unreasonable for him or her to take that risk having regard to the circumstances as he or she knows or believes them to be. [max of life] His or her conduct causes the death of another; Killing by gross A risk that his or her conduct will cause death or serious injury would be obvious to a reasonable carelessness means... person in his or her position; He or she is capable of appreciating that risk at this material time (but did not in fact do so) and either 1. his or her conduct falls far below what can reasonably be expected in the circumstances; or 2. he or she intends by his or her conduct to cause some injury, or is aware of, and unreasonably takes, the risk that it may do so, and the conduct causing (or intended to cause) the injury constitutes an offence. [suggested 14 year max]Government Response to Proposals (2000) What did they 1. Approved the Law Commission proposals on gross carelessness and reckless killing, with a recommend? max of 10 years for gross carelessness. 2. Proposed a third offence... Why did they The Government considers that there is an argument that anyone who embarks on a course of recommend this? illegal violence has to accept the consequences of his act, even if the final consequences are unforeseeable. The third offence Where a person causes the death of another; he or she intended to or was reckless as to whether some injury was caused; and the conduct causing the injury constitutes an offence. [max 5-10 years]Law Commission Report on Murder, Manslaughter and Infanticide 2006 What did they  Would include reckless within gross negligence recommend?  Some reckless killings will become second degree murder if D is reckless, in the sense that he or she realises that there is a serious risk that his or her conduct may kill, and intended by his her conduct to cause some injury or a fear or risk of injury.  For gross negligence, make it harder to prove by increasing the risk to one of death only. Why did they  Argued getting rid of recklessness reflects the current approach of the courts and homicide is recommend this? better off without it and its ‘unhappy history’.  Argues that the approach in GNM is acceptable because it balances out the lack of real mens rea that D would have (he may not realise he is taking a risk even though it is glaringly obvious to the reasonable person)
  • 2011 Synoptic PaperInvoluntary Manslaughter Writing a Model Answer: Describe the extent to which the precedent in R v Kennedy No. 2 [Source 5] represents a development in the law on involuntary manslaughter.AO2STRUCTURE:1. INTRODUCTION:Identify the area of law, and the importance ofthe case (what was decided and why)2. SECTION ONEHow does the decision link to the preceedinglaw?How far does/ did it confirm the existing law?3. SECTION TWOHow does this decision reflect changes in thelaw? Do later cases confirm it?4. CONCLUSIONDid it really change the law? Yes/ No and why. Use the key words of the question.
  • 2011 Synoptic PaperInvoluntary Manslaughter Writing a model answer (2) Discuss whether a conviction for manslaughter is possible in each of the following situations:(a) Francis has been looking after his elderly uncle by visiting him once a day and taking him his meals. He decides not to go one evening as he has been invited to a party. Francis finds his uncle dead the next day. Francis may be liable for gross negligence manslaughter for the death of his uncle. He may have assumed a duty of care by caring for his uncle over a period of time. This is similar to the case of Instan, where D cared for her aunt voluntarily and the then left her resulting in her death. Francis has breached his duty of care. According to Mackay in source 2, lines 20-1, this would require his conduct to be so bad in all the circumstances as to be a criminal omission. It may be that by abandoning him for one evening he does fall below the standard. In addition, it must also be proven that Francis ran a risk of death or serious injury (source 2, line13-14) . This was confirmed by Misra, where two doctors were convicted of gross negligence manslaughter on the basis of their failure to spot toxic shock syndrome in their patient. Francis may only have run a risk to health and welfare as he left him for one night, and so may not be liable for the death of Francis.(b) While waiting on the edge of the platform for a train to take them to college, Bill and Ben started to argue loudly. Becoming angry, Ben punches Bill who falls into Daisy who fell in front of the incoming train, and was killed.(c) Sarah and James find an old, rusty handgun. James tells Sarah that it’s perfectly safe as the trigger has rusted up and can’t be pulled. She laughs and picks it up, pointing it at James. He shouts, “Come on then – or are you too chicken?” She pulls the trigger, which moves, firing the gun and Adam is killed.
  • 2011 Synoptic PaperInvoluntary Manslaughter Writing a model answer (3) “The term gross negligence was never clearly defined in the cases” *Source 5, Line 11] Analyse the extent to which this reflects the development of the law on gross negligence manslaughter. Section What do I do? AO1 AO2 Source?Introduction Quote into context & key ideasMain Key case and general approach Element One Element Two Element Three Element Four
  • 2011 Synoptic PaperInvoluntary Manslaughter Reckless Act ReformsConclusion Using the quote, link back to approach of the courts
  • 2011 Synoptic PaperInvoluntary Manslaughter Examiner’s Report from January 2011General CommentsThis was the first sitting of the Criminal Law Special Study unit under the new criminal law theme of InvoluntaryManslaughter which covers the January and June 2011 papers. Again, however, despite the general comments fromthe January and June 2010 reports, and the narrower focus of the paper on a single topic, candidates would havebeen expected to have tackled each question with a greater clarity and structure than was evident. In many cases,this simply did not happen. This is particularly concerning given the following assistance available to candidates: thereduced number of cases from the source materials from which question 1 can be taken than in pre-2010 specialstudy papers; the availability of AO2 in the sources for question 2 and the availability of definitions in the sources foruse in question 3. Centres and candidates are advised to read the Special Study Skills Pointer Guide, available fromthe OCR website, which explains the skills and structure candidates need to know to successfully tackle the paper.Time management continues to be a problem with candidates spending a disproportionate amount of time, inparticular, on question 1. In some extreme cases, candidates would write three or four pages (see below). This is tothe potential detriment of the other two questions, in particular question 2. As stated in previous reports,candidates should be advised to try to work to the mark a minute guidance.Comments on Individual QuestionsQuestion 1*Question 1, in its traditional style, called for an examination of a case from the source materials: in this instanceAdomako. Only AO2 and AO3 marks are available for this question with the emphasis on evaluation. In order toachieve high marks candidates were required to identify the critical point arising from the judgment: that the ruleson gross negligence manslaughter were reinstated and somewhat clarified by the House of Lords. Candidatesachieving level 5 made this point in detail identifying the civil test of negligence and Lord Mackay’s confirmation ofthe further ‘gross negligence’ requirement. Such responses would discuss two further analytical points eg theapparent circularity of the test and explain a linked case, then make a clear comment on the significance of Adomako(as required by the rubric). On the issue of ‘circularity’, there were few candidates who could actually explain theissue, the majority simply stated that it was a problem without (or being able to) say why. The question producedgenerally well answered responses given the potential lack of clarity in the subject matter. The majority of responsesexplained the critical point, however, many candidates simply discussed, in out-line, the three part test leaving‘gross’ with a vague explanation.There was a range of responses and indeed some excellent answers showing full understanding of the skills requiredfor the question and thereby gaining maximum or near maximum marks. Again, despite previous reports explainingthis point, candidates achieving mid-ranking marks continued to lose out on the high marks by failing to address thequestion itself, in this case, the issue of the cases’ ‘significance’. More alarming is, however, the traditional andworrying trend of writing lengthy ‘essay’ type answers for this question. This may be a reflection on, for somecandidates certainly, the inability to write a thorough answer to question 2 and thus the feeling of being obliged towrite everything they know in question 1. Candidates are advised to follow the ‘mark a minute’ rule.Two other points are worth raising with regard to this question. Firstly, the vast majority of responses were able toprovide a linked case. In some responses candidates gave as many as five or six, showing the development of law. Itis important to note that with only 12 AO2 marks available, and candidates being required to explain the key criticalpoint of the case, show development by linking to an appropriate case and address the key word(s) within thequestion, such quantity of linked cases is unlikely to be the best use of a candidate’s time. Secondly, a large numberof candidates (whilst not always required to) used the opportunity to explain other relevant points linked to the caseto such an extent it became an answer based around the linked case(s) as opposed to Adomako itself.Question 2*Given the breadth of this topic area and the question asked, it produced varying responses. This question required afocus on a discussion of the difficulties in defining Involuntary Manslaughter and how the judges have developed, ornot, the law. The best responses were based therefore on the context of the overarching theme (role of judges, useof precedent and the development of law). Each Source contained a wealth of useful information as well ascomment that was useful in answering the question. Most candidates were able to describe and comment on thetwo (or three) types of Involuntary Manslaughter on the specification. However, there was a tendency for many
  • 2011 Synoptic PaperInvoluntary Manslaughtercandidates to simply rattle through a basic definition of the types with mechanical evaluation. This resulted in manyweak responses. Where candidates did discuss the parts of the definitions using cases to explain or back up theiranswers, they did generally gain high AO1 marks. It was interesting to note that many candidates performed betteron AO2 than AO1. This seemed due to generally weak or brief definitions and the use (or not) of cases for AO1.Generally, evaluation lacked sophistication and direction both to the question set and the levels of assessment andconsequently it became unusual to mark a candidate beyond level 3 or 4 for AO2 and for that matter AO1.For AO1, candidates could have secured high marks by providing detailed definitions of unlawful act, grossnegligence and reckless manslaughter illustrating them with the numerous cases that support the issue ofdefinitional problems or lack of clarity. There are nine cases in the Criminal Law Special Study Materials socandidates would be expected to consider at least eight with an expectation to go beyond the Sources to findrelevant cases to achieve the level 5 descriptor. It was pleasing to see reference to the various law reform groups’proposals and consequent detail. Unfortunately many scripts went into lengthy, detailed descriptions of theproposals to the detriment of the definitions of the current common law types of Involuntary Manslaughter.As has been stated in previous reports many candidates did refer back to the quotation throughout their response toquestion 2 and where it was done thoughtfully it gained appropriate credit. Unfortunately, in many instances it wasmerely done mechanically without real thought or development of arguments. It is worth noting that whilecandidates should refer to passages from the source materials to enhance their answer little, if any, credit will begiven to the candidate who refers to either an entire source (eg see Source 5) or a large chunk (eg see Source 5 lines2 – 26) as part of their answer.Question 3The application question was, in general, well answered, with many candidates who performed poorly on question 2improving their performance here. Question 3 incorporated the customary three separate small scenarios all worth10 marks based on three separate characters. Candidates should have found the individual questions accessiblesince each concerned different situations analogous with existing case law and in consequence gave the candidate adirection in which to pursue the most appropriate offence the character was likely to be charged with and whether aconviction for involuntary manslaughter was, or was not, possible. The key cases to provide candidates with a steerwere Cato (question 3 (a)), Kennedy (question 3 (b)) and Adomako (question 3 (c)). For level 5, candidates ought tohave included appropriate caseillustration in support of application and also to have focused on the critical pointsevident in the scenarios: for (a) that a conviction would be found for unlawful act manslaughter given the unlawfulact of Chesney injecting Brett and a possibility for one of gross negligence manslaughter given the recent case ofEvans; for (b) an unlikely conviction for unlawful act manslaughter for Dalvinder given the issues of causation andclarification in the House of Lords’ decision in Kennedy or again a possibility of a conviction for gross negligencemanslaughter from Evans should a duty of care be established; and for (c) a possible conviction of gross negligencemanslaughter along the Adomako ruling given the failure of Fontella to respond to the buzzer. Good discussion ofthe above in relation to the most appropriate offence, with a linked case(s) cited in support, together with a correctconclusion would allow a candidate to achieve high AO1 and AO2 marks.The questions attracted good responses, in general, with many able candidates demonstrating both thoroughknowledge and high level application skills whilst weaker scripts showed much more limited evidence of either.Again this is a question where the candidates could have adopted a structured and indeed mechanical approach.This would have gained candidates higher marks. Having identified appropriate offences in each scenario (thedefinitions available in the source materials) it was again the level of understanding and the quality of application ofthe legal principles that was the real discriminator.For part (a) answers were generally good with methodical application in their response with most candidates havingspotted the link to Cato. In (b) there were mixed responses from candidates the majority spotted the link to Kennedywhile a significant number went down the gross negligence line and depending on the quality of response in eithercase duly rewarded. The best answers were to (c) since the scenario reflected the Adomako line of enquiry albeit fewstudents questioned the issue of causation given Gladys was having a heart-attack at the time.An alarming trend this series was for candidates to create and discuss alternative scenarios to those in the question,similar to obiter statements in case law, particularly in responses to questions 3 (a) and (b). For example, suchstudents would commonly discuss for questions 3 (b) an answer based around Dalvinder injecting drugs to Ethan etcwhich was irrelevant and a poor use of the time available.
  • 2011 Synoptic PaperInvoluntary Manslaughter R v Church 1966 Ratio: Prior Precedent: Following Precedent: 1. Constructive act R v Franklin 1883 R v Dawson 1985 manslaughter will require an unlawful act 2. The act must be such as all sober and reasonable R v Larkin 1943 R v Watson 1989 people would inevitably recognise must subject the other person to, at least, the risk of some harm therefrom. R v Thabo-Meli 1954 R v Carey 2006 R v Adomako Ratio: Prior Precedent: Following Precedent: 1. Liability is based on the Andrews v DPP 1937 ordinary rules of R v Evans (Gemma) 2009 negligence 2. Establishes the test for gross negligence manslaughter R v Bateman 1925 R v Khan & Khan 1998 3. The jury’s role to decide whether D’s actions amounting to gross negligence, which is R v Seymour 1983 deserving of criminal R v Misra 2004 punishment.
  • Andrews v DPP 19372011 Synoptic Paper Ratio: Prior Precedent: Following Precedent:Involuntary Manslaughter R v Bateman 1925 R v Adomako 1994 1. Makes it clear that manslaughter is difficult to define 2. Confirms that the word recklessness can be used in instructing the jury. R v Evans (Gemma) 2009 3. Also made it clear that there is a difference between doing an unlawful act and doing an lawful act with a degree of carelessness the legislature finds criminal. R v Lidar 2000 Ratio: Prior Precedent: Following Precedent: 1. Allows the jury to be R v Adomako 1994 Attorney-General’s Reference instructed on recklessness. No2 of 1999 (2000) 2. Confirms that subjective recklessness may be R v Seymour 1983 enough for manslaughter 3. A vague definition for the R v Misra 2004 jury is necessary in manslaughter. Law Commission 1994
  • Following Precedent: R v Bateman 19252011 Synoptic Paper Ratio: Prior Precedent:Involuntary Manslaughter Cashill v. Wright 1856 Andrews v DPP 1937 1. Did D go beyond a mere matter of compensation between subjects and show such a disregard for life and safety of others as amounts to a crime deserving of punishment. R v Adomako 1994 2. Establishes the difference between the civil and criminal standards of negligence R v Misra 2004 3. Jury determines negligence, and the judge may use eords such as recklessness in ‘its ordinary connotation’ to instruct them R v Goodfellow 1986 Ratio: Prior Precedent: Following Precedent: 1. Constructive act R v Mitchell 1983 AG’s Ref No 3 of 1994 manslaughter does not require the act to be directed to a specific person R v Dalby 1982 2. Confirmed the basis of reckless act manslaughter as objective recklessness per. Caldwell. R v Seymour 1983
  • R v Kennedy (No2)2011 Synoptic Paper Ratio: Prior Precedent: Following Precedent: 2007Involuntary Manslaughter 1. Supply of drugs is an R v Dalby 1999 Evans (Gemma) unlawful act, but not a dangerous one. 2. The volitional act of V will ordinarily break the chain R v Dias 2001 of causation. 3. Administer is to be interpreted narrowly, and does not include R v Rogers 2003 preparation R v Cato 1976 Ratio: Prior Precedent: Following Precedent: 1. V’s consent is not ordinarily a R v Kennedy No 2 2007 defence to manslaughter R v Cunningham 1957 2. D’s actions must be more than de minimus. Simply being one cause is not enough, although it can accelerate death R v Dias 2001 3. Administration of drug under s.23 of the OAPA is enough for an unlawful act. 4. Supply of heroin is not an unlawful act.