Adam and Mia's Case Under English Law

Introduction

In reference to the given case study, we shall discuss the potential liability on part of Adam and Mia to be booked under the act of involuntary manslaughter, governed by the English Law. Although both of the scenarios have different acts and setup and thus, both of these circumstances shall be governed by different types of involuntary manslaughter. Hence, we shall discuss the concept of involuntary manslaughter under the English law and how the components of involuntary manslaughter shall be applicable in both of the situations which have been described in the given case problem. If you require assistance in navigating through such legal intricacies, then you can consider seeking UK dissertation help from reputable sources. If you require assistance in navigating through such legal intricacies, then you can consider seeking UK dissertation help from reputable sources.

Relevant Legal Issue

The first scenario in the given case study deals with the case of Ben and Adam. In this case, Ben and Adam, two friends, get into a fight. In the course of such fight, Adam pushes Ben into a river, by the side of which they were standing. Thus, it is evident from the facts of the instant case that Adam committed the act out of rage and the act had no hidden intentions or mens rea whatsoever.

In the second scenario, Dipika was rushed to hospital due to a sudden bee-sting allergic reaction. Mia was the newly deployed doctor of the particular hospital and during the course when she was in charge of Dipika, she accidentally injected an injection of adrenalin in her lungs which caused the death of Dipika. Had the injection admitted correctly, Dipika would have been alive.

The relevant legal issues involved in this abovementioned case study are as follows:

Whether in both the cases, Adam and Mia would be charged with involuntary manslaughter of Ben and Dipika respectively?

If both Adam and Mia are charged with involuntary manslaughter of Ben and Dipika, what kind of involuntary manslaughter they would be charged with?

Relevant provisions of legislations and case laws

Involuntary manslaughter is the act governed by the law of UK where one person kills another person without having any particular motive or mens rea. In the case of involuntary manslaughter, the person must have enough ground to believe that by committing the act, he/she will not cause death of the other person. Thus, for the purpose of establishing a definite case of involuntary manslaughter, two elements should be present,

Absence of mens rea.

The person shall have enough grounds to believe that such action on his/her part cannot cause death of the other person upon whom the hurt has been inflicted.

1. Involuntary manslaughter

(a) Involuntary Manslaughter in the nature of gross negligence

Gross negligence which causes the death of the person shall be considered under this section of involuntary manslaughter. This type of negligence is called “criminal negligence” which is out of the boundary of the normal Tort Law of land.

(b) Unlawful dangerous act manslaughter

The English Law of UK defines unlawful dangerous act manslaughter as involuntary manslaughter which is caused by an unlawful act and such act is known to have dangerous consequence which might not be intended by the accused person. Thus, even if the accused person does not intend to cause grievous hurt that will cause death, the accused person shall be liable under involuntary manslaughter as the act committed was an unlawful dangerous act. This is also called as the ‘constructive manslaughter’.

2. DPP v Newbury [1977] AC 500

In this case, the House of Lords decided that if the accused could foresee the consequence of his actions and accused person’s mind was not affected by drugs at the time of committing crime, it shall be regarded as a case of manslaughter as mens rea and actus rea, the two elements of manslaughter are present.

3. R v Church [1966] 1 QB 59

In this case, it was held that an act will be classified as a dangerous unlawful act if the accused under normal parlance could understand the possible risk or consequence such act bore.

3. R v Cheshire [1991] 1 WLR 844 & R v Malcherek and Steel [1981] 2 All ER 422

In both of these cases, it was held by the Court of Appeal that even if a person dies by medical negligence, it does not mitigate the accused person’s liability of involuntary manslaughter. Unless the negligent treatment is not connected to the accused person’s dangerous act, it shall still be regarded as a case of unlawful dangerous act manslaughter.

4. R v Adomako [1995] 1 A.C. 171

In this case, it was decided that if the accused had a duty of care towards the victim under the English Tort Law of negligence, the same theory shall be applied in the case of manslaughter as well.

5. R v. Bateman, [1995] 1 A.C. 171 and R v. Caldwell, [1982] AC 341, HL

In both these cases, it was held that the principle of tort negligence law i.e. the principle of duty of care shall be applicable in criminal cases as well and if the accused was in such a relationship with the victim that the accused owed him/her a certain duty of care, it shall come under the purview of gross negligence manslaughter.

Application of the abovementioned legal provisions

In the given case study, there exists two different parts where different circumstantial factors are in play. We shall break down the factors of both the scenarios and discuss the presence of potential liability, if any, in the acts of the accused persons of the given case problem.

In the first case, Adam pushed Ben into the river which amounts to an intentional act of rage. Although Adam did not intend murder Ben, he intended to cause grievous hurt to Ben. Applying the test of the case of R v Church and Dpp v. Newbury & Jones, it could be analyzed that Adam had the intention to commit the act (mens rea) and acted accordingly (actus rea). As both AR and MR were present in the act of Adam, it should be considered as an unlawful act of punishable nature. Pushing a person into river abruptly can cause the death of a person and an act that could put the lives of people under serious threat, shall be considered as a dangerous act. Also, even though Ben’s treatment was delayed due to the traffic, the deterioration of his health condition was not independent of the act committed by Adam. Applying the legal principle held in the cases of R v Cheshire & R v Malcherek and Steel, we can deduce that the causation between the act committed and the ultimate death of Ben was factual. Hence, considering the case laws mentioned above and the legal analysis of the given scenario, it can be held that Adam has potential liability to be charged with unlawful dangerous act manslaughter.

Continue your exploration of Violent Crime in London has been Flagged as an Issue Which Requires an Intervention with our related content.

In this case, Mia, being a qualified doctor, owed a duty of care towards her patients under the Tort Law of England. Also, being a qualified doctor, such duty of care of Mia included the primary knowledge of where an injection can be admitted and the consequence of a wrongly admitted of injection in a body. Thus, applying the principle of R v Adomako, R v. Bateman & R v. Caldwell, it can be deduced that Mia had a doctor-patient relationship with Dipika and such relationship by default proves the existence of a duty of care towards Dipika. By administering the adrenalin injection in Dipika’s lungs clearly shows the breach of such duty of care. As Dipika died due to such negligent act by Mia, she has the potential liability to be booked under involuntary manslaughter in the nature of gross negligence herein.

Thus, as it has been already discussed and decided, in the given case study, Adam shall be booked under involuntary manslaughter in the nature of unlawful dangerous act as he had the potential liability on his part to commit the manslaughter. In the case of Dipika, Mia shall be booked under involuntary manslaughter in the nature of gross negligence as she had enough potential liability as it has been decided.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Journal

Prevezer, S.; “The English Homicide Act: A New Attempt to Revise the Law of Murder” (1957), Columbia Law Review, 57(5)

Robertson, Andrew. “On the Function of the Law of Negligence.” Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, vol. 33, no. 1, 2013, pp. 31–57

Book

Sally, R.; “Involuntary Manslaughter: the law explained” (2014); V. 3

Article

Bayliss, G.; “Unlawful act manslaughter and dangerousness” (2018); A-Level Law Review Magazine

“Involuntary Manslaughter”; Webstroke < https://webstroke.co.uk/law/criminal-law/involuntary-manslaughter > accessed on 2nd June, 2021

Case Laws

DPP v Newbury [1977] AC 500

R v Adomako [1995] 1 A.C. 171

R v. Bateman, [1995] 1 A.C. 171

R v. Caldwell, [1982] AC 341, HL

R v Church [1966] 1 QB 59

R v Cheshire [1991] 1 WLR 844

R v Malcherek and Steel [1981] 2 All ER 422