Criminal Law- UDAM
what is required to establish liability for UDAM?
A. D committed an unlawful act;
B. the unlawful act was dangerous
C. it caused the death
what are the requirements for unlawful act elements?
a tort or civil rong is insufficient- franklin
the act must be criminal for some other reason than negligently performed- adrews v DPP
the act must be identified and established- Jennings, R v Lamb
D need not know his act is unlawful- DPP v newbury & jones
will an omission suffice?
R v Low suggests an omission will not suffice BUT A.Answoth argues a deliberate omission might.
so might an advert omission in R v Taylor
does it need to be directed at the victim
R v Daulby suggested it must be but this was disapproved in:
v Mitchel
R v Goodfellow- as long as it was a directed cause of death
A-Gs no 3 1994 [1997]
what is the meaning of dangerous?
R v Church- sober and reaosnable person would see the risk of some harm resulting.
DDP v Newbury
R v JM; R v SM
R v JF& NE- the test is objective but it should be reviewed.
danger mean some physical, psychological or psychiatric harm
R v Church refered to physical harm
R v Dawson- isk of emotional disturbance is not enogh but shock emanating from fright which led to a physical harm would be enough
R v Carey- had the evidence supported it, the jury could have been allowed to consider whether there was a risk of physical harm emanating from shock.
R v JM; R v SM- recognise the risk of harm going beyond fear and stress to physical harm
Dangerousness and the peculiarity of the victim
R v Dawson- the objectist can only be undertaken on the basis of knowledge gained by him at the present time
R v Watson- S&R would have realised Vs vulnerability at once.
R v Carey
what cases show circumstances may make a crime dangerous?
R v Bristow
R v Carey
R v Long, bowers and core
what are the rules around causation?
normal causation rules apply
R v Kennedy- D is not to be treated s causing V to act ina certian way if V makes a voluntar and informed decision to act in that way
carey- unlawful act which was accepted as dangerous was the one that caused death
R v Jognstone- the act must be unlawful and dangerous and be the substantial cause of death
franklin
D took up a large box from Brighton pier and threw it into the sea. the victim was swimming underneath in the sea at the time and was struck by the box and died. guilty of manslaughter based on the principles of criminal negligence
Andrews v DPP
D drove a wan abve the speed limit and overtook another car. as he did so he struck a pedestrian and killed him. conviction for manslaugher was upheld
R v Lamb
D pointed a revolver at his friend V and pulled the trigger as a joke, but killed V
D mistakenly thought that because the bullets were not in position, the stricking pin could not hit them, but a bullet was brought into the firing position when the trigger was pulled.
D was onvicted of UDAM, howeven appealed on basis intent for assault had not been proved and convicim was quashed
DPP v Newbury & Jones
Ds pushed a paving stone left by workmen on the parapet of a bridge which killed a railway guard, they held it was unnecessary to prove subjective foresight by Ds
R v Lowe
D did not call a doctor to his sick infant child. the child died from dehydration and gross emancipation, conviction could not stand
R v daulby
D unlawfully supplied drugs to a drug addict who subsequently died after taking alot. he was convicted of UDAM on the basis that he supplied the drug however this was appealed and held that Ds act had not in any event been the direct cause of the death
R v Mitcheal
D and another man S became involeved in a scuffle in a post office. D pushes S who fell into an elderly lady, causing the lady injuries for which she later died. D was guilt of UDAM
R v Goodfellow
a man wished to move council houses, to do this he set fire to the house and consequently his wife, son and somes girlfriend all died in the fire- there is no requirement that the unlawful act was directed at the V nor that it was directed at a person
AGs ref n03 of 1994
D was the BF of a woman who was pregnant, he had an arguement with her and stabbed her in the face, back and the abdomin, he intented to harm the girlfriend, however the baby was very premature, baby only lived for just over 100 days but then died, sentenced for 4 years for GBH on the woman, however when the baby died he was convicted of murder, he pleaded not guilty. courts decision was whether they could find him guilty of murder, decided that is was not possible to apply the notion of transferred malice here, because we would need a double transfer, first from the mother to the feotus (feotus is not protected by the law of murder), then from the feotus from the child, the court held this isnt possible, additionally what he intended to happen to the first person did not happen to the second
R v church
church and the V were in a van for sexual purposes. the V started mocking him and a fight broke out. he knocked the V semi-unconscious. after attempts to arouse her proved unsuccessful, he panicked and thought V was dead so threw her in a river. the cause of death was drowning. the church test was made- would the sober and reasonable person see the risk of some harm
R v JM; R v SM
JM and SM had been involeved in a fight with a few doormen and a night club. one of the doormen, who seemed healthy had a rental artery aneursm and died. they were charged with UDAM. the CoA held it was not a requirement of UDAM that the accussed should have foreseen any specific harm, just that the R and S would see some harm
R v JF and NE
2 young boys went into a dissued house and set a mattress alight and left, killing a homeless person. held the test for dangerous is objective
R v Dawson
Ds robbed petrol station with a replia gun and threatened a 60 yearold man who later died of a heart attack, the Ds were not aware of his heart condition. the S and R perso would have have had knowledge of Vs weak heart and would not foresee his heart attack
R v Carey
a 15 year old was beat up, she colapsed and died due to a heart condition that incuded a heart attack. the ds were not guilty as the cause of death was amiee running away not their physical assualt
R v watson
Ds broke into the house of a 87 year old man and verbally abused him then left without taking anything. V had a serious heart condition which caused a heart attack. a S and R would have recognised vs vulnerability at once.
Bristow
burglary case where a group of people went onto a farm and tried to steal some quad bikes. the owner must have come out and confronted them and was mowed down by a car. this was organised and planned and was therefore dangerous
R v Long, bowers and cole
theft case where the Ds went around stealing and then they were chased by the police and would drive with great speed and carelessness. A police officer got dragged for over a mile and died. this was dangerous
R v Johnston
a group of kids spat at an old man who had a heart attack and died. there was no foresight of injuried.