2. Aims and Objectives
• Our aim is to
develop...............................&...........................
of the key rules (AO )
• To practice the skills of ...........................&
..................................(A0 )
• To consolidate our...................................to
ease revision
14. 10/19/2012
copyright 2006 Free template from
brainybetty.com ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
14
1. Was the Act Unlawful?
• The death must be
caused by a criminal
offence, a tort is not
sufficient.
• Task: Complete your
cases from page 3-6 of
your handout and
summarise the first test
in your own words.
15. 10/19/2012
copyright 2006 Free template from
brainybetty.com ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
15
• R v Franklin
• R v Lamb
• R v Andrews
• R v Humble
• R v Arobieke
• R v Jennings
Must be unlawful
Lawful act does not become unlawful
just because someone dies
Throwing a box into the sea was not
sufficient
The v was not in fear therefore not
assault
Pushing car into path of other cars was assault
Injecting insulin by unauthorised person is
illegal
Standing on station platform is not illegal
Possessing a kitchen knife is not illegal without
intent to do harm
16. 10/19/2012
copyright 2006 Free template from
brainybetty.com ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
16
2. Objectively Dangerous Act
• The Unlawful Act must also
be dangerous. This is tested
objectively as stated in R v
Church.
• In R v Church it was held that
all the circumstances are
relevant and this includes
• those known to D
• as well as those that would
have been known by the
hypothetical ‘sober and
reasonable’ person had they
been present.
17. 10/19/2012
copyright 2006 Free template from
brainybetty.com ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
17
• DPP v Newbury & Jones
• R v Dawson
• R v Watson
• R v Wooley & Campbell
Boys dropped slab on train killing guard. If sober and reasonable man
saw risk of injury it does not matter if D did not
Armed robbery at petrol station, no physical attack but attendant had
heart disease and soon after died of a heart attack.
Not m/s as reasonable man would no have seen risk of injury
DD broke into old man’s house, verbal abuse and man died.Court found
that S&RM would have seen risk of injury as they saw a frail 87 yr old
2 women harassed old man in street he died of a heart attack. Jury found
S&RM would have seen risk of injury
18. 10/19/2012
copyright 2006 Free template from
brainybetty.com ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
18
3. The substantial cause of death
• The unlawful act must
cause the death. The rules
here are the same as they
are for murder and the egg-
shell skull rule is also to be
considered.
• Q: Tell me the rules on
factual and legal causation
• Now complete your cases
and summary up to page
14.
19. 10/19/2012
copyright 2006 Free template from
brainybetty.com ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
19
• Did not cause death
• R v Bennett –
• R v Carey –
• Did cause the Death
• R v Paget and R v Corian –Augustine
• Where more than one cause
• Attorney Gen Ref No4 1980
• Does not need to be sole cause
• R v Shohid
Illegal act of keeping fireworks did not cause death
The fight did not cause to run which was why she died
D did several acts that could kill. Can be seen as m/s even
Though cannot identify the act that caused death
If D is part of group that causes m/s d is guilty even if does
not commit the final act of killing as long as role is more than trivial
20. 10/19/2012
copyright 2006 Free template from
brainybetty.com ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
20
• Reaction of V must be foreseeable
Eg R v Hayward, R v Mackie and R v Corbett
• Example of unforeseeable
R v Williams & Davis
• Intervening event
R v Cheshire – medical intervention rarely breaks the chain
- significantly contributed to death
Egg Shell Skull rule
R v Woods – Little brother dies from smack
R v Ruby - V has v thin skull
DD picked up V and tried to rob him. His death by jumping from the
speeding car was not foreseeable
21. 10/19/2012
copyright 2006 Free template from
brainybetty.com ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
21
Causation continued
• Drug misuse
R v Dias –
R v Rogers -
R v Kennedy -
D passes V a heroin filled syringe. V injects
it and dies. D did not cause death. The
voluntary injection broke the chain
D applies a tourniquet to V’s arm to help him inject drugs
This was a cause as he directly assisted him. They were
in a joint action therefore manslaughter
After originally being guilty of m/s as D passed a syringe to
V who used it immediately and it was viewed as in a joint action
the appeal court quashed the conviction as it was the same as R v Dias
22. 10/19/2012
copyright 2006 Free template from
brainybetty.com ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
22
4. The unlawful act must be intentional
• an omission will not do
• but there need not have
been any intention to cause
harm
• nor must d realise the act
was unlawful or dangerous
• See DPP v Newbury &
Jones, R v Le Brun, R v Cato
23. Consolidation Task....
• Working in groups of 3:-
• Identify the offence
• Explain whether each element is satisfied
• What should D be convicted of?
• Produce a poster of your responses and be
prepared to share these with the class...
24. R v Goodfellow R v Corion Auguste R v Cato DPP v Newbury &
Jones
Omissions R v Lamb R v Franklin R v Arobieke
R v Slingsby R v Church R v Lowe R v Le Brun
Bingo... Consolidation time...what have you learned?
