Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
[ Next ]
Introduction a definition?
Board of Trade v
Owen (1957)
We have some
reservations about Lord
Tucker's definition.
Why do we need a
definition?
Classification of Offences
1. Method of trial
(a) Indictable offences
2. Power to arrest
Citizens' arrest
Elements of a crime
Actus reus and mens rea
Strict liability
1. Mens Rea
Parsley (1970).
2. Actus Reus
Always consequences?
Crime =
Strict Liability
Actus reus is the guilty conduct. The actus reus includes all the
elements in the definition of the crime except the accused's
mental element.
Cardinal principle.
A person may incur criminal liability for failing to do that which the law
requires him to do as much as by doing that which the law prohibits.
The actus reus includes the state of affairs or circumstances
surrounding the commission of the offence, together with the results or
consequences (if any) that flow from that act or omission. It is essential
that the defendant acted voluntarily and that he caused the injury,
damage or harm.
In other words, actus reus includes all the elements of the offence
indicated in the definition except the mens rea(the state of mind), if
any.
Must be a
voluntary act,
not
automatism
The accused
must cause
the prohibited
consequences
An omission is
only culpable
if there is a
common law
or statutory
duty to act.
Introduction
Omissions are only criminal where a duty to act arises at common law
or is imposed by statute.
Causation in fact
To establish causation it is necessary to firstly ask if the defendant in
fact caused of the specified consequence of the offence. One way is to
ask
"But for what the defendant did would the consequences have
occurred?"
"Sine qua non" is Latin for "without which, not" meaning an essential
condition, something that is indispensable.
In full it is "causa sine qua non" literally translated means cause
without which - the event - could not have occurred.
The prosecution
failed to
establish
causation in
fact
in White (1910)
The defendant put cyanide into his mother's drink, but she died of
heart failure before the poison could kill her.
The answer to the question 'But for what the defendant did would she
have died?' is 'No'. She would have died anyway. Not guilty of murder.
Other cases
that illustrate
the 'but for
test' - and are
also relevant to
legal causation
Operative or
substantial
cause, or
intervening
event
reasonably
foreseeable.
Causation in fact does not always mean there will be causation in law.
'Substantial'
Means more than something very trivial, more than something that
the law considers de minimis.
Contrast a deep cut and a pin prick (both constitute wounds).
Operative
If the defendant's act merely provided the setting in which some other
cause operated the chain of causation would be broken Smith (1959).
Legal causation
exists if result
reasonably
foreseeable.
Another way to show that defendant's act was the 'operative and
substantial' cause in law is to ask if the result was a reasonably
foreseeable consequence the defendant's actus.
Pagett (1983)
The defendant found guilty of causing the death of a girl. He held the
girl hostage in front of him when he fired at armed police officers.
The 'thin skull' rule says that the defendant must take his victim as he
finds him. Therefore, even if injury or death is not reasonably
foreseeable the law still considers the defendant liable if the victim
suffered from some physical or mental condition that made him or her
vulnerable.
Blaue (1975)
Self-neglect
Smith (1959)
An original assailant can not escape liability by showing that his victim
received inadequate, or negligent medical treatment, unless medical
treatment is grossly negligent, Smith (1959)
When the
medical
treatment is
grossly
negligent, the
chain of
causation may
be broken.
Jordan (1956) D stabbed V, who died eight days later in hospital. The
medical treatment was 'palpably wrong'.
Double Effect
actus interveniens".
So Automatism is something external that the defendant does not bring upon
himself.
Not one bee, but a swarm, because it has to be total loss of control
If the defendant loses control because of an illness, that is, some internal factor,
he can only plead insanity.
Acts or omissions
must be voluntary,
if they are not it is
called 'Automatism'
Voluntary conduct
not always required
in Strict Liability
offences.
There are many
offences of strict
liability, in which no
fault element need
be proved.
In such cases, one
can therefore have
an actus
reus without any
corresponding mens
rea.
Automatism does not include self induced intoxication, even though the accused
may not be in control of his muscles.
Stephen's Digest of
the Criminal Law
(3rd ed., 1887)
Exceptions
Normally, the
criminal law does
not require a
person to act to
prevent harm or
wrongdoing, or
prevent a crime
being committed
All exceptions
require a duty.
Parents, nurses,
etc., have a duty.
This is known as a
'derivative liability'
Neglect leading to
death may lead to
liability for
manslaughter by
gross negligence.
In R v Shepherd (1862) it was held that the parents of an 18year-old 'entirely emancipated' daughter were under no special
to care or assist a
person over the
age of 16, but
there can be a
common law duty.
Withholding
treatment in the
"best interests of
the patient"
Practical and
financial
considerations
The Mental
Capacity Act 2005
Advance decision advance directive - a
living will.
It would seem
that, in
conjunction with
the
appropriate mens
rea, most offences
against property,
including theft and
dishonest
handling, may be
committed by
omission.
In R v Miller [1983]
HL the House of
Lords made it clear
that in statutory
crimesactus
reus includes
omissions.
Per curiam.
(i) It would be conducive to clarity of analysis of the ingredients of
a crime that is created by statute to consider and refer to the
conduct of the defendant and his state of mind at the time of that
conduct, instead of making use of the expressions actus
reus and mens rea.
Contemporaneity
of actus
Reus andmens Rea
Coincide, loosely
interpreted
Worked example:
Fagan v
Metropolitan Police
Commissioner
[1969] an
example of the
continuous act
principle.
"Transaction principle"
Different actions
can be treated
as a single,
extend or
continuous
'course of
conduct'.
Continuing for
how long?
It seems that the continuing act will continue for as long as the
defendant is about the business of committing or covering up the
crime.
The mens
rea and actus
reus can be quite
separate in time
and geography
A further
difficulty arose
in Attorney
General's Ref (No.
4 of 1980) [1981]
Lord Diplock
in Miller urged
us to use
'conduct of the
accused' rather
than "actus
reus"
Bad Latin.
Lord Diplock said that it would be better that we avoid bad Latin and
instead to think and speak about the conduct of the accused and his
state of mind at the time of that conduct, instead of speaking
of actus reus and mens rea.
Haughton v
Smith [1975] HL
Lord Hailsham:
Properly translated, this means "An act does not make a man guilty
of a crime, unless his mind be also guilty."
It is thus not the actus which is "reus," but the man and his mind
respectively. Before the understanding of the Latin tongue has
wholly died out of these islands, it is as well to record this as it has
frequently led to confusion."
A useful
translation is
"an act does not make a person legally guilty unless the mind is
legally blameworthy"
Court of Appeal in
Singh (Gurdev) v The
Queen [1973] CA
Lord Lane:
Simon of Glaisdale
element
actus = act
reum (reus) = liable
A man is not liable for his acts alone, but only if he acts with
a guilty mind.
There is a mental
element implicit in the
actus reus of any
offence of unlawful
possession.
"Carrying an offensive
weapon in a public
place" expresses the
actus reus of section 1
(4), Prevention of Crimes
Act 1953.
The house was not "a cannabis den" that was not its
function.
Impersonation or
"Personation" occurs
by presenting oneself
as another.
"False imprisonment"
can depend upon D's
beliefs.
Ignorance as to the
lack of insurance is no
bar to conviction for
permitting the use of
an uninsured vehicle
In all cases involving "to permit," in the actus reus the mind
of the accused is involved.
In a certain type of
manslaughter the actus
reus is not merely that
V dies as a result of D's
neglect, but that V was
D's had assumed
responsibility for V.
This only arises where
D voluntarily assumes
the care of V.
In Fagan v Metropolitan
Police
Commissioner [1968], the
accused accidentally
parked his car on a
policeman's foot.
foot was the actus reus. D became liable for that actus
reus when he possessed mens rea.
The act of battery was the external basis of the charge and
spanned driving onto the foot to removing the car but that
liability proceeded from the joining of mens rea to this.
There has been a break in mens rea, but the actus reus has
continued uninterrupted. Hence, Fagan would have
committed the one assault at these two separate times
during which he had mens rea.
Lord Reid's:
"[Their crime is not reduced] from murder to a lesser crime,
merely because the accused were under some
misapprehension for a time during the completion of their
criminal plot."
D's argument that there was no contemporaneity of actus
reus and mens rea was rejected: the events were one
transaction, during which malice aforethought had existed.
The actus reus stretched from the first blow to the eventual
death. That was "the killing."
Fagan and Thabo Meli affirm the view that it is the actus
reus that identifies the existence of and duration of a crime.
From the Latin, Actus non-facit reus nisi mens sit rea
These words
include 'intentionally',
'knowingly',
'recklessly',
'maliciously', or
'negligently',
'fraudulently',
'suffering',
dishonestly and so
forth.
Transferred malice
Latimer (1886)
Guilty
Pembliton (1874)
Coincidence of actus
reus and mens rea
Ignorance or mistake
of a civil law obligation
can negate mens rea of
a crime
intention is present.
When considering
murder, the House of
Lords has ruled that
intent to kill or inflict
serious bodily harm is
necessary to establish
'malice aforethought'.
R v Moloney (1985) HL
R v Hancock and
Shankland (1985) HL
R v Nedrick (1986) HL
R v Woollin [1998] HL
Jury normally
decides what
intention is.
Direct intention
Problem area.....
Foresight of
certainty =
intention
Section 8 Criminal
Justice Act 1967
R v Cunningham
(1981) HL
Hyam
Moloney
if yes jury
can infer intentio
n
Hancock &
Shankland
"Greater
probability of
consequences
...if consequences
foreseen
but; natural
consequences
ambiguous.
Nedrick
so .....
Therefore
Both have to be
proved.
Upheld
in Woollin (1998)
Foreseeability
in mens rea
Draft Criminal
Code
In R v Cunningham
[1957] the term
subjective
recklessness first
appeared
The Test:
The Test:
Note:
Caldwell/Lawrence
broadened
Cunningham
Relevant cases
Rv
Cunningham [1957
Applicable to
Theft Act offences;
] CA
Relevant cases
The Caldwell
Lacuna
pilot,
tightrope act,
reasonable force to make an arrest (e.g. PC forcing
suspects car off the road),
reasonable self-defence.
Now gross
negligence will
normally amount
to
Caldwell/Lawrenc
e type
recklessness.
Once the obvious and serious risk is proved the only way out
for the defendant is to prove he considered the matter and
decided there was no risk, or negligible risk. This is known as
the Caldwell Lacuna, first acknowledged in R v Reid (1989).
G and another, R
v (2003) HL
Conspiracy - introduction
History of
statutory
conspiracy
Conspiracy is
about
blameworthy
intention
Section 1(1)
Criminal Law Act
1977
Element 2:
The mens rea (apart from the mental element involved in making
an agreement), comprises the intention to pursue a course of
conduct which will necessarily involve commission of the crime in
question by one or more of the conspirators.
The conspirators must intend to do the act prohibited by the
substantive offence.
The conspirators' state of mind must also satisfy the mental
ingredients of the substantive offence.
If one of the ingredients of the substantive offence is that the act
is done with a specific intent, the conspirators must intend to do
the prohibited act and must intend to do the prohibited act with
the prescribed intent.
Example:
conspiracy to
wound/ GBH
Conditional
agreements
Element 3:
Example:
handling stolen
goods
Section 1(2) is
not confined
strict liability
offences
R v Saik [2006]
HL
No mens
rea required
Sherras v De
Rutzen [1895]
Wright J
Sweet v
Parsley (1970) HL
Evidence of mens
rea inadmissible
This type of
offence typically
found in legislation
relating to
SL offences are
common
Currency offences
Road traffic offences
Health and safety
Pollution control
Possession (e.g. drugs and weapons)
Sale of tobacco to
under aged
persons not now
SL
Many brought
'privately' i.e. by
Trading Standards
or for licensing
offences
Common law
offences are rarely
state of affairs or
strict liability
crimes
Possible exceptions:
Blasphemous libel (Lemon v Gay News LTD [1979] HL),
Criminal contempt,
R v Rimmington and
R v Goldstein[2005]
HL
No mens
rea needed for
negligence
Cases
indecency
R v Brock and Wyner (2001) CA = permitted premises for
drug use
R v K [2001] HL = indecent assault didn't know age of girl
Barnfather v Islington [2003] QBD = failed to ensure school
attendance
Salabiaku v France (1988) ECHR = smuggling presumes guilt,
not contrary to Art 6 (fair trial)
B (a minor) v
DPP [2000] HL
B (a minor) v
DPP [2000]
rape under the Sexual Offences Act 2003. It was held that the
offence of sexual intercourse with a person under 13, whether
the victim consented or not and whether or not the defendant
reasonably believed that the child was 13 or over, was a crime
of strict liability.
The Court of Appeal had no difficultly arguing that Parliament
could enact and enforce a crime of strict liability, and that the
Human Rights Act was not engaged.
Absolute liability
State of Affairs
crimes and
absolute liability
Some causation
must exist
Other jurisdictions
Lord Hoffman's
distinction in
Empress Car
Whole case here
Proof of causation
Fault
Absolute liability
Strict liability
Fault based
liability
Inconsistent
authority
Winzar v Chief
Constable of
Kent(1983)
Larsonneur (1933)
Lord Parker in R v
Winson [1968]
QBD
Strict liability is
not intended
where D could not
observe the law,
even for a grave
social evil
Defences available
for strict liability
offences
Defences for strict liability are those that are relevant to actus
reus. Defences that are probably relevant to actus reus include
automatism and duress. Foreseeability has relevance too.
Defences which are relevant to mens reahave no place in cases
of strict or absolute liability, since it does not have to be
proved.
The defence of honest mistake as to fact (in the sense of a
belief in circumstances which, if true, would make the
defendant's conduct innocent), will usually succeed in an
allegation of strict liability.
Strict liability
compatible
withHuman Rights
Act
The Evidential
Burden
R
(Sheldrake) [2004
] HL
AG Ref (No 4 of
2002) [2004] HL
Contrasting cases
Rv
Hussain [1972]
R v Steele [1993]
R v Buswell [1972]
R v Deyemi (2007)
CA
The defendants were found in possession of an electrical stungun, which they believed to be a torch. It was held that the
prosecution merely had to prove possession of the object in
question, and the fact that the object was a firearm or other
weapon prohibited by the Act.
It did not have to prove that the defendant had known or could
have known that it was a prohibited weapon.
Checklist
General assumption that mens rea is required in all offences.
Displaced only if clearly or by necessary implication the effect of statute.
Then if statute only effective with Strict Liability.
Too strong for really criminal offences
Only when statute concerned with issue of social concern.
Murder
Murder
The classic
definition of murder
is
parliament.
Committed
anywhere
Only one
punishment for
murder
Death during
sporting games.
Euthanasia is
murder.
Double Effect
death.
The death was of a person in being.
A foetus
"Kills", what is
death?
Prosecution must establish that D's act was both a factual and
a legal cause of the result.
Factual causation
Not ill-will,
wickedness or
premeditation.
Motive is not
intention
Lord Mustills
concept of
"indiscriminate
malice"
Nedrick, R v (1986) CA
"Where a man realises that it is for all
practical purposes inevitable that his actions
will result in death or serious harm, the
inference may be irresistible that he intended
that result, however little he may
havedesired or wished it to happen" per Lord
Lane
Want
Moloney, R v (1985) HL
"I didn't want to kill him. It was kill or be
killed. I loved him, I adored
him." Moloney (and below)
Nedrick, R v (1986) CA
"I didn't want anyone to die, I am not a
murderer..." Nedrick
Desire
Motive
Moloney, R v (1985) HL
"A man who at London Airport, boards a
plane which he knows to be bound for
Manchester, clearly intends to travel to
Manchester, even though Manchester is the
last place he wants to be and his motive for
boarding the plane is simply to escape
pursuit." per Lord Bridge
Section 8 Criminal
Justice Act 1967
Moloney, R v (1985)
HL
Hancock and
Shankland (1986) HL
Nedrick (1986) CA
supports Hancock and
Shankland
Defendant's wish
different from
outcome
Transferred
malice
Transferred
malice, allegedly
a true story from
USA
Alternative
verdict
Only one
Punishment
Diminished
responsibility S2
Provocation S3
Homicide Act
1957
For the purposes of the exam board specification, Manslaughter can be of two types:-
Involuntary Manslaughter
(a) A person acts with gross negligence and kills another person.
(b) A person kills another person whilst carrying out an unlawful act which would not
normally kill or seriously hurt that other person.
Voluntary manslaugher
The defendant pleads successfully the defences of provocation,
suicide pact or
diminished responsibility.
Corporate manslaughter
Formerly, only a human being could commit manslaughter.
However, the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 has made some
important changes in respect of the liability of organisations (including companies).
Where an organisation organises or manages its activities and a person dies and it is shown
there was a gross breach of a relevant duty of care owed by the organisation to the
deceased, the organisation commits an offence.
It is not yet clear if manslaughter by gross negligence will still be available were
appropriate.
When a company is responsible for the death of person the law looks for someone within the
company who has been guilty of gross negligence.
The law will only convict a person or persons responsible who are the 'brains' (management)
of the company.
If it is one of the 'hands' (worker) of the company, it will be the individual and not the
company that the court will convict.
[ Next ]
Defence only available on charges of murder not attempted
murder
The law on
diminished
responsibility
is contained
insection 2 of
the Homicide
Act 1957.
Introduced
because
Examples of
conditions
held to
amount to
diminished
responsibility
Reduces the
offence to
that of
manslaughte
r
Jury to
decide in
new or
borderline
cases.
Balance of
probabilities
"Abnormality
of mind",
which has to
be
contrasted
with the
expression
"defect of
reason"
It is not necessary to show that the accuseds
abnormality existed from birth R v Gomez [1964]
CA.
Abnormality of
mind induced
by alcohol or
drugs is not
due to
inherent
causes
Substantially impaired
The
abnormality
of the mind
had to be
such as to
substantially
impair the
defendant's
responsibility
for his
actions.
Diminished
responsibility
is not a
medical
diagnosis, it
is a legal
concept
which
ultimately
only a jury
can decide
[ Back ] [ Next ]
Diminished
responsibility is a
partial defence
which, if
successfully
pleaded, reduces
liability from
murder to
manslaughter (s
2(3) of the
Homicide Act
1957).
R v Dix (1982) CA
Alcohol can
substantially
impair mental
responsibility
Abnormality of
mind induced by
alcohol or drugs
is not due to
inherent causes
Voluntary
intoxication is not
an acceptable
cause of the
abnormality
What is it?
Why doesn't
the woman
leave?
Jane Mooney
(1994) North
London
Survey
Diminished
Responsibility
Provocation
Problems
Kiranjit
Ahluwalia
Emma
Humphreys
R v Hobson
[1998] CA
Only available in
a murder case
Provocation is a
common law
defence which
has been
modified by
Section 3 of the
Homicide Act
1957 which
provides:
Section 3 does
not state the
effect of a
successful
defence - it is by
virtue of the
common law that
the offence is
reduced to
manslaughter.
The procedure:
1. Once the judge has decided there is
sufficient evidence that the defendant
was provoked, whether or not the
defence has been raised expressly by the
defendant, he must leave it to the jury to
answer the questions:
2. Was the defendant provoked to lose his
self-control? and
3. Was the provocation enough to make a
R v Duffy [1949]
Devlin
"the provocation must cause a sudden and
temporary loss of self-control, rendering the
accused so subject to passion as to make him or
her for the moment not master of his mind".
Where there is a gap in time between the
provocation and the killing - "cooling time" - D
may encounter difficulties in trying to establish
the defence of provocation.
R v Ibrams and
Gregory (1981)
Provocation and
causation
contrasted.
Rv
Ahluwalia [1992]
R v Thornton (No
2) [1996]
DPP v
Camplin [1978] HL
Would such
person react as D
did?
Intoxication or
excitability not
relevant
relevant
R v Morhall [1995]
HL
Alcoholism, drug
addiction,
paedophilia are
relevant factors
Lord Goff;
"In DPP v Camplin, the House of Lords had
stressed that the jury should take into account
"all those factors" or "the entire factual
situation" which would affect the gravity of the
provocation. There was nothing in that
judgment to rule out any disreputable
characteristics"
Addiction relevant
but being
intoxicated is not.
Self-induced
provocation
Jersey v
Holley [2005] PC
R v Johnson [1989]
CA
The law of
provocation is in
a mess.
Back to
Luc Thiet Thuan v
The Queen [1997]
DPP v
Camplin [1978] and
R v Morhall [1996]
Lord Hoffmann:
"There are people (such as battered wives) who
would reject any suggestion that they were
'different from ordinary human beings' but have
undergone experiences which, without any fault
or defect of character on their part, have
affected their powers of self-control. In such
cases the law now recognises that the emotions
which may cause loss of self-control are not
confined to anger but may include fear and
despair."
Provocation
Homicide Act 1957
s3
Requires
1. A subjective determination of whether D was
in fact provoked to lose self-control ('whether by
things done or by things said or by both
together'), and
2. An objective determination of 'whether the
provocation was enough to make a reasonable
man do as [D] did'.
R v Smith (Morgan
James) (2000) HL
The objective
test.
Held:
Not all
characteristics
though
And
"Male possessiveness and jealousy should not
today be an acceptable reason for loss of selfcontrol leading to homicide, whether inflicted
upon the woman herself or her new lover."
However, in R v Weller [2003] CA this issue was
left open and the court explained that it was a
matter to be decided by the jury.
Provocation
sometimes
presents
difficulties for the
defence
Section 4 of the
Homicide Act
1957
Suicide Pact
Example
Aiding suicide
Mens Rea
Mens rea for
murder is not
present
Need not
realise it is
dangerous
D must have the mens rea for the unlawful act e.g.
intention or recklessness etc., but it is not necessary
for the defendant to realise that the act is unlawful
or dangerous Newbury and Jones (1977), AttorneyGeneral's reference(No 2 of 1999) (2000) Southall
Rail crash.
Sentence
Actus reus
It must be
shown
Must be a
criminal act
Compare:
R v Lamb [1967] - Russian roulette
R v Arobieke [1988] killed on railway line
The consent of the victim will not prevent an act
from being unlawful. R v Cato [1976] friends
injecting heroin.
Unlawful act
Must be an
act, not an
omission
Act can be
aimed at
property
Goodfellow
1986)
Type of harm
which has to
be reasonably
foreseeable
Fear and
apprehension
are not
enough
Frailty is
sufficient
How much
knowledge
does one
attribute to
the
bystander?
R v Church [1966]
The jury must be directed to consider the possibility
of physical harm as opposed to merely emotional
harm R v Dawson (1985) - robbed petrol attendant.
defendant.
Supplying
drugs
Difference
between
UADA and
gross
negligence
Can be a wilful
act or omission
Duty of care
extends to a
person upon
whom the law
imposes a duty
of care or who
has taken upon
himself a duty,
to preserve life
Duty of care
can be
Dr/patient
Manager of
property/tenan
t
Master of
sailing
ship/crew
Electrician
Duty to
summon
medical
assistance
Reckless Manslaughter
recklessness.
Since Adomako all traces of reckless
manslaughter have been subsumed by
Gross Negligence Manslaughter.
Procedure
actual foresight, or
inattention
Mere carelessness is
not enough
The standard of
negligence necessary to
constitute
manslaughter was
defined in Andrews v
DPP [1937]
and
R v Seymour [1983]
HL which adopted R v
Lawrence [1982] HL)
Negligence must go
beyond that required
How negligent?
How 'gross'?
What amounts to
gross is for the jury
Foreseeable risk of
"health and welfare"
Test
is Caldwell Recklessnes
s
R v G and R [2003] HL
Whole case here
Examples of conduct
which if recklessness or
grossly negligent
creates a liability
Reckless Manslaughter
Procedure
Gross Negligence
manslaughter replaced
the difficult concept of
Reckless manslaughter
to be sufficient
In R v West London Coroner, ex p
Gray [1988] QBD it was held that for
unlawful killing because of neglect on the
part of the police, it must be show, that
there was a failure amounting to
recklessness to do what should have been
done for the health and welfare of the
deceased.
Gross negligence could
include:
indifference,
actual foresight, or
inattention
Mere carelessness is
not enough
The standard of
negligence necessary to
constitute
manslaughter was
defined in Andrews v
DPP [1937]
and
R v Seymour [1983]
HL which adopted R v
Negligence must go
beyond that required
for civil liability, which
is a question of degree
for the jury
How negligent?
How 'gross'?
What amounts to
gross is for the jury
Test
is Caldwell Recklessnes
s
R v G and R [2003] HL
Whole case here
Examples of conduct
which if recklessness or
grossly negligent
creates a liability
Reckless Manslaughter
Procedure
Gross Negligence
manslaughter replaced
the difficult concept of
Reckless manslaughter
Mere carelessness is
not enough
Negligence must go
beyond that required
for civil liability, which
is a question of degree
for the jury
How negligent?
How 'gross'?
What amounts to
gross is for the jury
Foreseeable risk of
"health and welfare"
Test
is Caldwell Recklessnes
s
R v G and R [2003] HL
Whole case here
Examples of conduct
which if recklessness or
grossly negligent
creates a liability
dangerous medicines or
undertakes a dangerous operation
may be guilty of manslaughter if
death occurs.
Criminal negligence in driving a
motor vehicle or other vehicle or in
riding or navigating a vessel.
A driver, fireman or other railway
employee may be guilty of the
manslaughter of persons killed as
a result of the criminally negligent
performance of his duties.
Negligent use of a dangerous
weapon or other dangerous thing
likely to cause death in an
improper place or without taking
proper precautions to avoid injury.
A person who is in charge of a
mine or of machinery if a accident
occurs.
[ Back ] [ Next ]
All companies,
big and small
now may be
prosecuted
No liability for
"accomplice"
Liability of
individuals
Hospitals, police
etc
Unlimited fine
"Publicity Order"
Standards
In force 6 April
2008
Exam focus
27,000 deaths,
few prosecutions
even fewer
convictions
Zeebrugge
On December 8,
1994, OLL Ltd
became the first
company in
English legal
history to be
convicted of
homicide.
Jackson
Transport
(Ossett) Ltd and
director James
Hodgson.
protective equipment.
R v Great West
Trains (1999)
Thames Trains,
April 2004:
record fine
Rv
Henderson (1995
)
an adequate lookout.
A public enquiry followed in 1992 and the
enquiry report stressed that the onus for the
safety of travellers rests with the operators, who
undertake to provide a service for profit.
The study leads to the conclusion that the
Department, acting through the Marine
Directorate, showed technical competence and
dedication, but lacked the vision and drive to
lead the river marine industry into accepting that
high safety standards and commercial success
were compatible.
The Committee's recommendations include
changes to the future organisation of marine
safety, action on rivers, changes to the Marine
Accident Investigation branch, improved
legislation, and information and new powers
over boat owners and operators.
Rv
Bowles (1999)
11 December 1999:
Two directors a brother and sister of a haulage
company were found guilty of corporate
manslaughter, after ignoring the excessive hours
of one of their drivers, who caused a fatal crash
after falling asleep at the wheel of his lorry.
Given suspended sentences of 15 months and 12
months respectively.
Stephen and Julie Bowles were convicted when
the jury decided that they knew, or that they
should have known, that their driver, Andrew
Cox, was in a "dangerously exhausted state".
Cox who often worked more than 60 hours
without taking proper breaks killed two motorists
on the M25 in October 1997.
The first
corporate
manslaughter
case of its kind,
fails
July 2006
9 July 2003
1 September 2004
October 2005
A New Offence of
Corporate Killing