Synoptic revision booklet 2011

2011 Synoptic Paper
Involuntary Manslaughter

Synoptic Paper
Revision Guide
2011

Basic Set Up of the Exam

Time: 1 ½ hours
Question 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 context
Two 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 sources
Three: to the scenario, explanation and conclusion.  3 critical points in each problem and a
relevant case
 Conclude

2011 Synoptic Paper
Speed Test (1) Speed Test (2)
Identify the sources and line numbers of the following Identify the sources and line numbers of the following

1. 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 sources

8. Where will you find the view of the House of Lords on Rogers? 8. Identify two problems with GNM and their location in the sources

9. 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 Paper

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

2011 Synoptic Paper

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

2011 Synoptic Paper

Summaries of Sources

Source 1: Extract adapted from the judgment of Edmund-Davies LJ in R v Church [1966] 1 QB 59

This source comes from the Court of Appeal, and focuses on the test for dangerousness in constructive act
manslaughter. It points out that there has been inconsistency in the test for dangerousness, and that this is because
of issues with the question of whether it requires a mens rea or not. Having decided that it did, it contains the test
for dangerousness in lines 31-33.

Source 2: Extract Adapted from the judgement of Lord Mackay LC in Adomako [1995] 1 AC 171 HL

This source comes from the House of Lords, and focuses on the definition of Gross Negligence Manslaughter. It
confirms that the civil law of negligence is used to establish if D has breached a duty, but that the ‘criminal’ nature of
the breach is left to the jury to decide as it is a fact based decision. He also acknowledges the ‘circularity’ problem of
this definition (that it makes negligence in fact and in law the same thing), and confirms that the risk must be of
death. 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 382

Professor Smith looks at all the types of involuntary manslaughter and what they have in common. In addition, he
argues that because the definition of mens rea in murder is so vague, that manslaughter is also uncertain. There is
also a problem as to when involuntary manslaughter begins, because its definition is so vague. However, he does
point out that the element of unlawfulness, which is common to all types of involuntary manslaughter, has become a
little more clearly defined recently.

2011 Synoptic Paper
Source 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 in
subjective reckless act manslaughter, basing it on words of Lord Atkin in Adomako, where he said that the word
reckless could be used ‘in its ordinary connotation’ to instruct a jury on gross negligence manslaughter. It is a bit
confused, however, as to whether reckless act is a separate category of manslaughter, or a different way of
instructing 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 515

This source covers all three types of involuntary manslaughter, and focuses on the problems of each. It
acknowledges the problem of Lidar (whether subjectively reckless manslaughter is a separate category) but argues
that 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 to
acknowledge the circular argument. It also debates whether CAM is too harsh – balancing the liability of D for a
death he did not foresee against the need to punish for killing another. It also acknowledges that there are cases
which 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. 19-20

This source focuses on the House of Lords decision in Kennedy No2, and its impact on the causation test for
Constructive Act Manslaughter. The voluntary and free actions of V in injecting themselves broke the chain of
causation, rather than forming a joint activity as the lower court had decided. It confirms the essential elements of
CAM (lines 15-17) and summarises the previous relevant cases. Most importantly, it explores the decision of the
court in Rogers and the response of the court in the current case. Finally, it proposes reforms to the law which would
address the particular issue of supplying drugs and liability for manslaughter.

2011 Synoptic Paper

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 manslaughter

2. 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 than
when 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 various
that 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 involuntary
manslaughter… without any clear definition of either term.” Source 5, lines 24-5

Analyse 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 overt
recklessness, 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 another
human being, it is not amiss to preserve the test which promises the greatest measure of deterrence, provides the penal
consequences 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 person
might 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 malice
aforethought. 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 Paper
Section Three Questions

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.

(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.


(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.


(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 Paper

Reforms to the Law on Involuntary Manslaughter
Source Links: Source 6, lines 41-45; Source 4, lines 22-3

Law 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 Paper
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.

AO2
STRUCTURE:
1. INTRODUCTION:

Identify the area of law, and the importance of
the case (what was decided and why)

2. SECTION ONE

How does the decision link to the preceeding
law?
How far does/ did it confirm the existing law?

3. SECTION TWO

How does this decision reflect changes in the
law?
Do later cases confirm it?

4. CONCLUSION

Did it really change the law? Yes/ No and why.

Use the key words of the question.

2011 Synoptic Paper
Writing a model answer (2)

(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 Paper
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
ideas

Main Key case and
general approach

Element One

Element Two

Element Three

Element Four

2011 Synoptic Paper
Reckless Act

Reforms

Conclusion Using the quote,
link back to
approach of the
courts

2011 Synoptic Paper
Examiner’s Report from January 2011

General Comments
This was the first sitting of the Criminal Law Special Study unit under the new criminal law theme of Involuntary
Manslaughter which covers the January and June 2011 papers. Again, however, despite the general comments from
the January and June 2010 reports, and the narrower focus of the paper on a single topic, candidates would have
been 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: the
reduced number of cases from the source materials from which question 1 can be taken than in pre-2010 special
study papers; the availability of AO2 in the sources for question 2 and the availability of definitions in the sources for
use in question 3. Centres and candidates are advised to read the Special Study Skills Pointer Guide, available from
the 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, in
particular, on question 1. In some extreme cases, candidates would write three or four pages (see below). This is to
the 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 Questions

Question 1*
Question 1, in its traditional style, called for an examination of a case from the source materials: in this instance
Adomako. Only AO2 and AO3 marks are available for this question with the emphasis on evaluation. In order to
achieve high marks candidates were required to identify the critical point arising from the judgment: that the rules
on gross negligence manslaughter were reinstated and somewhat clarified by the House of Lords. Candidates
achieving level 5 made this point in detail identifying the civil test of negligence and Lord Mackay’s confirmation of
the further ‘gross negligence’ requirement. Such responses would discuss two further analytical points eg the
apparent 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 the
issue, the majority simply stated that it was a problem without (or being able to) say why. The question produced
generally well answered responses given the potential lack of clarity in the subject matter. The majority of responses
explained 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 required
for the question and thereby gaining maximum or near maximum marks. Again, despite previous reports explaining
this point, candidates achieving mid-ranking marks continued to lose out on the high marks by failing to address the
question itself, in this case, the issue of the cases’ ‘significance’. More alarming is, however, the traditional and
worrying trend of writing lengthy ‘essay’ type answers for this question. This may be a reflection on, for some
candidates certainly, the inability to write a thorough answer to question 2 and thus the feeling of being obliged to
write 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 to
provide a linked case. In some responses candidates gave as many as five or six, showing the development of law. It
is important to note that with only 12 AO2 marks available, and candidates being required to explain the key critical
point of the case, show development by linking to an appropriate case and address the key word(s) within the
question, such quantity of linked cases is unlikely to be the best use of a candidate’s time. Secondly, a large number
of candidates (whilst not always required to) used the opportunity to explain other relevant points linked to the case
to 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 a
focus on a discussion of the difficulties in defining Involuntary Manslaughter and how the judges have developed, or
not, the law. The best responses were based therefore on the context of the overarching theme (role of judges, use
of precedent and the development of law). Each Source contained a wealth of useful information as well as
comment that was useful in answering the question. Most candidates were able to describe and comment on the
two (or three) types of Involuntary Manslaughter on the specification. However, there was a tendency for many

2011 Synoptic Paper
candidates to simply rattle through a basic definition of the types with mechanical evaluation. This resulted in many
weak responses. Where candidates did discuss the parts of the definitions using cases to explain or back up their
answers, they did generally gain high AO1 marks. It was interesting to note that many candidates performed better
on 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 and
consequently 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, gross
negligence and reckless manslaughter illustrating them with the numerous cases that support the issue of
definitional problems or lack of clarity. There are nine cases in the Criminal Law Special Study Materials so
candidates would be expected to consider at least eight with an expectation to go beyond the Sources to find
relevant 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 the
proposals 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 to
question 2 and where it was done thoughtfully it gained appropriate credit. Unfortunately, in many instances it was
merely done mechanically without real thought or development of arguments. It is worth noting that while
candidates should refer to passages from the source materials to enhance their answer little, if any, credit will be
given to the candidate who refers to either an entire source (eg see Source 5) or a large chunk (eg see Source 5 lines
2 – 26) as part of their answer.

Question 3

The application question was, in general, well answered, with many candidates who performed poorly on question 2
improving their performance here. Question 3 incorporated the customary three separate small scenarios all worth
10 marks based on three separate characters. Candidates should have found the individual questions accessible
since each concerned different situations analogous with existing case law and in consequence gave the candidate a
direction in which to pursue the most appropriate offence the character was likely to be charged with and whether a
conviction for involuntary manslaughter was, or was not, possible. The key cases to provide candidates with a steer
were Cato (question 3 (a)), Kennedy (question 3 (b)) and Adomako (question 3 (c)). For level 5, candidates ought to
have included appropriate caseillustration in support of application and also to have focused on the critical points
evident in the scenarios: for (a) that a conviction would be found for unlawful act manslaughter given the unlawful
act of Chesney injecting Brett and a possibility for one of gross negligence manslaughter given the recent case of
Evans; for (b) an unlikely conviction for unlawful act manslaughter for Dalvinder given the issues of causation and
clarification in the House of Lords’ decision in Kennedy or again a possibility of a conviction for gross negligence
manslaughter from Evans should a duty of care be established; and for (c) a possible conviction of gross negligence
manslaughter along the Adomako ruling given the failure of Fontella to respond to the buzzer. Good discussion of
the above in relation to the most appropriate offence, with a linked case(s) cited in support, together with a correct
conclusion would allow a candidate to achieve high AO1 and AO2 marks.

The questions attracted good responses, in general, with many able candidates demonstrating both thorough
knowledge 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 (the
definitions available in the source materials) it was again the level of understanding and the quality of application of
the legal principles that was the real discriminator.

For part (a) answers were generally good with methodical application in their response with most candidates having
spotted the link to Cato. In (b) there were mixed responses from candidates the majority spotted the link to Kennedy
while a significant number went down the gross negligence line and depending on the quality of response in either
case duly rewarded. The best answers were to (c) since the scenario reflected the Adomako line of enquiry albeit few
students 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, such
students would commonly discuss for questions 3 (b) an answer based around Dalvinder injecting drugs to Ethan etc
which was irrelevant and a poor use of the time available.

2011 Synoptic Paper
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 1937
2011 Synoptic Paper Ratio: Prior Precedent: Following Precedent:
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 1925
2011 Synoptic Paper Ratio: Prior Precedent:

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:
2007

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.

Synoptic revision booklet 2011

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (20)

En vedette

En vedette (20)

Similaire à Synoptic revision booklet 2011

Similaire à Synoptic revision booklet 2011 (14)

Plus de Miss Hart

Plus de Miss Hart (16)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

Synoptic revision booklet 2011