Involuntary Manslaughter Exam Technique
Unlawful Act Manslaughter (Assault IDEA Structure)
I The relevant issue is unlawful act manslaughter.
D This is defined by AG reference No 3 of 1994 (1997) and sets out four
elements.
E The first element is an unlawful act. R v Franklin (1883) states the act
must be criminal as a civil act is not sufficient. R v Lamb (1967) states
that it must be a positive act as an omission is not sufficient.
I The relevant issue is assault.
D Assault is intentionally or recklessly causing the victim to apprehend
immediate unlawful violence as stated in Fagan v MPC (1969).
E The actus reus of assault is causing the victim to apprehend
immediate unlawful violence. DPP v Logdon puts emphasis on the
victim apprehending the violence.
E [ Smith v Chief Superintendent of Woking Police Station 1983 states
[Additional that fear of what the defendant might do next is sufficient for the
Legal Issues] actus reus of assault.]
[Tuberville v Savage 1669 states words can negate an assault.]
[R v Ireland 1997 states you only need to prove the defendant’s
actions led to the consequences.]
[R v Burstow 1997 states even silent telephone calls and letters can
amount to an assault.]
A In this case… (Apply to case).
E The next element is the D had the necessary mens rea for the
unlawful act. DPP v Newbury and Jones (1976) states only the mens
rea for the unlawful act is needed and the defendant does not need
to foresee death or even a risk of death from these actions. The mens
rea of assault is intentionally or recklessly. R v Savage (1991) states
that we do not need to foresee any harm.
Choose One:
> Direct intent is a decision to bring about the prohibited
consequence as stated in R v Mohan 1976.
, Involuntary Manslaughter Exam Technique
> Oblique intent is tested using the visual certainty test, was the
consequence a visual certainty? And did the defendant realise the
consequence was a virtual certainty? As stated in R v Woollin 1998.
> Recklessness is where the defendant realises the risk but takes
that risk anyway as stated in R v Cunningham 1957.
A In this case… (Apply to case).
E The third element is the unlawful act must be dangerous. R v Church
(1966) states all sober and reasonable people would inevitably
recognise must subject the other person to, at least, the risk of some
harm resulting there from, albeit not serious harm. R v Dawson
(1985) and Waston (1989) states when seeing whether there was a
risk of harm the jury must possess the knowledge that the D had or
should have had at the time of the offence.
A In this case… (Apply to case).
I The final element is the unlawful and dangerous act caused the
death.
D Causation is defined as proving the link between the defendants
actions and the consequences.
E The first element is factual causation which is tested for using the but
for test as stated in R v White (1910).
A In this case… (Apply to case).
E The next element is novus actus interveniens where an intervening
act may break the chain of causation.
E [Victims' own actions break the chain of causation when they are daft
[Additional and unreasonable as stated in R v Kennedy (2007)/R v Cato (2004).]
Legal Issues]
[Third party actions break the chain of causation when they are so
potent that it renders the defendants actions insignificant as stated in
R v Jordan.]
[There are no intervening acts.]
A In this case… (Apply to case for every intervening act applicable).
E The final element is legal causation which is tested for using the more
than minimal rule as stated by Corion Auguiste (2004).
Unlawful Act Manslaughter (Assault IDEA Structure)
I The relevant issue is unlawful act manslaughter.
D This is defined by AG reference No 3 of 1994 (1997) and sets out four
elements.
E The first element is an unlawful act. R v Franklin (1883) states the act
must be criminal as a civil act is not sufficient. R v Lamb (1967) states
that it must be a positive act as an omission is not sufficient.
I The relevant issue is assault.
D Assault is intentionally or recklessly causing the victim to apprehend
immediate unlawful violence as stated in Fagan v MPC (1969).
E The actus reus of assault is causing the victim to apprehend
immediate unlawful violence. DPP v Logdon puts emphasis on the
victim apprehending the violence.
E [ Smith v Chief Superintendent of Woking Police Station 1983 states
[Additional that fear of what the defendant might do next is sufficient for the
Legal Issues] actus reus of assault.]
[Tuberville v Savage 1669 states words can negate an assault.]
[R v Ireland 1997 states you only need to prove the defendant’s
actions led to the consequences.]
[R v Burstow 1997 states even silent telephone calls and letters can
amount to an assault.]
A In this case… (Apply to case).
E The next element is the D had the necessary mens rea for the
unlawful act. DPP v Newbury and Jones (1976) states only the mens
rea for the unlawful act is needed and the defendant does not need
to foresee death or even a risk of death from these actions. The mens
rea of assault is intentionally or recklessly. R v Savage (1991) states
that we do not need to foresee any harm.
Choose One:
> Direct intent is a decision to bring about the prohibited
consequence as stated in R v Mohan 1976.
, Involuntary Manslaughter Exam Technique
> Oblique intent is tested using the visual certainty test, was the
consequence a visual certainty? And did the defendant realise the
consequence was a virtual certainty? As stated in R v Woollin 1998.
> Recklessness is where the defendant realises the risk but takes
that risk anyway as stated in R v Cunningham 1957.
A In this case… (Apply to case).
E The third element is the unlawful act must be dangerous. R v Church
(1966) states all sober and reasonable people would inevitably
recognise must subject the other person to, at least, the risk of some
harm resulting there from, albeit not serious harm. R v Dawson
(1985) and Waston (1989) states when seeing whether there was a
risk of harm the jury must possess the knowledge that the D had or
should have had at the time of the offence.
A In this case… (Apply to case).
I The final element is the unlawful and dangerous act caused the
death.
D Causation is defined as proving the link between the defendants
actions and the consequences.
E The first element is factual causation which is tested for using the but
for test as stated in R v White (1910).
A In this case… (Apply to case).
E The next element is novus actus interveniens where an intervening
act may break the chain of causation.
E [Victims' own actions break the chain of causation when they are daft
[Additional and unreasonable as stated in R v Kennedy (2007)/R v Cato (2004).]
Legal Issues]
[Third party actions break the chain of causation when they are so
potent that it renders the defendants actions insignificant as stated in
R v Jordan.]
[There are no intervening acts.]
A In this case… (Apply to case for every intervening act applicable).
E The final element is legal causation which is tested for using the more
than minimal rule as stated by Corion Auguiste (2004).
