Issues and Reform Proposals for Involuntary Manslaughter
Explore the complexity of involuntary manslaughter, including various conduct levels, mens rea distinctions, and sentencing challenges. Dive into specific reports, case examples, and reform suggestions to address the issues and propose solutions for this criminal offense.
Download Presentation
Please find below an Image/Link to download the presentation.
The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author. If you encounter any issues during the download, it is possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.
You are allowed to download the files provided on this website for personal or commercial use, subject to the condition that they are used lawfully. All files are the property of their respective owners.
The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author.
E N D
Presentation Transcript
Involuntary Manslaughter AO2
Create a chart illustrating the issues and reform proposals for Involuntary Manslaughter. Set it out as shown below: Type of IM Issues Identified Detail/example of issue Reform proposals Homework due Monday November 27th this! This section should be identified points only! i.e. - Wide range of conduct - Death an unexpected result This section should include specific reports where issues have been highlighted, case examples and very brief explanations This section should include specific reports that have been published as well as specific reforms offered You should all have Try to avoid writing long winded sentences and lots of information. It needs to be brief and to the point!!
UAM - Wide range of conduct Minor act such as pushing vs conduct just short of murder Different levels of mens rea same label of manslaughter Sentencing issue maximum sentence is life; no minimum
Mitchell punched a man who staggered into an old lady and she died. Is it fair to convict him of manslaughter? UAM Death an unexpected result This result was unexpected Cato drug administration (risk of death is less unexpected). Should Mitchell and Cato be charged with the same offence? There should be different levels/categories of offences here
1996 LC Report - it is inappropriate to convict a defendant for an offence of homicide where the most that can be said is that he or she ought to have realised that there was the risk of some, albeit not serious, harm to another resulting from his or her commission of an unlawful act . UAM Objective Test This is unfair as it only requires the D to realise the risk of some harm, not serious harm; and most definitely not death!
Its a crime because its criminal. What is gross? GNM Circular Test The jury have to decide whether the conduct is criminal to decide whether the defendant should be convicted Illogical they cannot be convicted if the act is not criminal
Jury must decide the question of law Usually the judge will decide if the act is capable of being criminal and the jury will decide whether the facts are enough for the defendant to be guilty GNM Inconsistency of decisions Jury must decide if conduct is gross enough to be criminal Judge should decide on this to ensure consistency
Risk of death? Risk of serious injury? There was confusion as to which would suffice for GNM GNM Risk of death Misra (2004) clarified this Risk of death only! Provides clarification and reflects the correct level of criminal liability
The present law relating to involuntary manslaughter serves neither the defendant nor the criminal justice system. Discuss the accuracy of this statement. Task 1 you have 15 minutes to discuss in your pairs your opinion in response to the question. Discuss whether the statement is accurate and think of elements of IVM that are fit for purpose. Introduction pairs Task 2 in your pairs write a suitable introduction to the essay question above in relation to the evidence you have discussed.
I D IDEA Practice Class paragraph E A
1996 ABOLISH UAM!!! 2006 proposal UAM REFORM 3 tier structure of homicide offences Killing through gross negligence Killing another person (intent to cause injury) (defendant was aware of some serious risk of injury) Criminal act manslaughter (subjective test only) Allows differentiation between levels of blameworthiness!
1996 2006 2 categories of killings Did not recommend having 2 categories!!!! Reckless killing and killing by gross carelessness Instead .only gross negligence manslaughter New criteria: - A person by his conduct causes the death of another - A risk that his conduct will result in death and this was obvious by standards of a reasonable person - He is capable of appreciating that risk at that time - Conduct falls far below what is reasonably expected in the circumstances Reckless killing more serious of the 2 offences -D is aware that his conduct will cause death/serious injury - It was unreasonable in the circumstances for him to take that risk GNM REFORM Killing by gross carelessness lower-level offence - Risk of death/serious injury would be obvious to a reasonable person in the position of D - D was able to appreciate risk - His conduct falls far below reasonable expectation of someone in his position - He unreasonably takes the risk
