• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Critically consider whether the law governing involuntary manslaughter is in a satisfactory state.

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Critically consider whether the law governing involuntary manslaughter is in a satisfactory state. Currently involuntary manslaughter involves a variety of situations where death has occurred as a result of the conduct of the accused and where it has been deemed appropriate to find the accused criminally responsible for that death. The accused will not have intended to kill or cause grievous bodily harm. The maximum sentence for the offence is life imprisonment and the judge has discretion in handing out the appropriate type and length of sentence up to that maximum. It is unknown for a non-custodial sentence to be given for an involuntary manslaughter conviction. There have been many proposals for the reform of involuntary manslaughter through legislation, most recently in relation to so called corporate manslaughter. The debate has been given fresh impetus following the disastrous train crash at Ladbroke Grove, just outside Paddington Station in 1999. There are three types of involuntary manslaughter. D will be convicted of constructive manslaughter if he kills by committing an act that is both 'unlawful' and 'dangerous.' It is called constructive manslaughter because the liability for death is built or 'constructed' from the unlawful and dangerous act from which the death has flowed even though the risk of death may never have been contemplated by the accused. ...read more.

Middle

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 a risk of some albeit not serious harm to another resulting from his or her commission of an unlawful act.' In Watts (1998), the COA decided that, whenever the manslaughter by gross negligence is raised then the judge must direct the jury in accordance with the principles established in Adomako. Adomako firmly re-established gross negligence as the correct test. In 1994 the Law Commission published a consultation paper provisionally recommending the abolition of constructive manslaughter on the basis that it was 'inappropriate to convict a defendant for an offence of homicide where the most that can some, albeit not serious harm, to another resulting from his or her report which recommended : * The abolition of involuntary manslaughter altogether * Its replacement by two new offences of 'reckless killing' and 'killing by gross carelessness.' The biggest problem identified for maintaining involuntary manslaughter was considered to be the width of situations it can cover, which presents judges with significant problems, particularly when determining the appropriate sentence to be imposed in any given case. The new offences were defined in a draft bill attached to the report as follows. ...read more.

Conclusion

The terms of the new offence in the 2000 document are that : * A person by his or her conduct causes the death of another. * He or she intended to or was reckless as to whether some injury was caused. * The conduct causing or intended to cause, the injury constitutes an offence. These conditions are concise and the law governing involuntary manslaughter is in a reasonable state, with there being clear boundaries where there is liability as in breaches of duty or gross negligence and where there is no relationship at all as concluded in R V Khan and Khan. There are clear and logical tests, such as the Church Test (1965) where it must be recognised that the danger of the action would have been recognised by a 'sober and reasonable person' that help judges reach satisfactory conclusions and direct juries correctly. The Government has stated that it is rational for a person 'to accept the consequences of his act, even if the final consequences are unforeseeable.' This is satisfactory as it would be ridiculous to allow people to escape the sentence of manslaughter just because they did not foresee the risk of death, as stated before ignorance is no defence. Thus the law governing involuntary manslaughter, in my critical opinion is in a satisfactory state. Kate Allen ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Criminal Law section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Criminal Law essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    English law does not normally impose liability for an omission or failure to act ...

    4 star(s)

    a legal obligation on a person to act in a certain situation. If they fail to act in such a case, they may be liable for a crime. Many of these involve vehicles or driving under the Road Traffic Act 1988.

  2. Marked by a teacher

    Is the current law on the non-fatal offences against the person satisfactory?

    4 star(s)

    Lords clarified the law in Ireland; Burstow, and the passage of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 make reform unnecessary.

  1. Marked by a teacher

    Critical evaluation of murder for A2 law unit 4

    3 star(s)

    This all or nothing effect of the defence can been seen as very harsh in murder cases as the defendant can either be acquitted or given a life sentence. He was justified in using some force and his only fault is that he used more force than was reasonable.

  2. Marked by a teacher

    Discuss whether the rules governing insanity as a defence in criminal law are in ...

    3 star(s)

    The defendant must have disease of the mind. 2. The defendant must have defect of reason. 3. The defendant did not know the nature and quality of the act he was committing. OR 4. The defendant did not know that his actions were legally wrong.

  1. Looking at the offences of Assault, Battery, Actual bodily harm and Grievous really serious ...

    Grievous means serious DPP vs. Smith (1961). A jury will decide what kind of harm, amounts to really serious. In the case of Ireland v. Burstow (1997), the word inflict no longer implies the direction of force. In the case Burstow had became obsessed with a female acquaintance.

  2. Murder and Voluntary manslaughter - analysis of cases and the plea of involuntary manslaughter.

    The hospital had been negligent perhaps even reckless. Judicial principle: It was discovered that his windpipe had narrowed and this caused the severe breathing difficulties that he was experiencing at the time of his death. It was argued that this was due to the negligence of the hospital when the tracheotomy tube was fitted and this, therefore, had broken the chain of causation.

  1. The justifiable use of force in self-defence depends entirely upon the circumstances in which ...

    The courts quashed her convictions as she had struck out in the "agony of the moment". It was said that it was not necessary for her to demonstrate a reluctance to fight. This may seem impractical as in some cases, there may be a chance to walk away safely resulting in no harm caused.

  2. The History and Main Features of Criminal Law in the USA.

    come as close to the commission of the substantive crime as attempt does. The offense imposes liability on the defendant for crime committed by co-conspirators. Conspiracy combines spoken words with an overt act but does not require the commission of the planned unlawful object.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work