LAW

Using case law distinguish between murder and various types of manslaughter (30
marks)

In the case of R v Cunningham murder is defined as the unlawful killing of a human

being with malice aforethought.Malice aforethought can be inferred intended to cause
great physical damage or expressed purpose to kill,the intention to kill or cause
grievous bodily harm is the primary criterion that sets a murder case apart.
Manslaughter as opposed to murder, is a less serious criminal offence that entails the
unprovoked death of another person. Manslaughter does not require the existence of
malice or intent to kill as in contrast to murder it usually results from circumstances in
which the death is accidental or the product of careless actions or extreme negligence.
There are different types of manslaughter voluntary manslaughter ,involuntary
manslaughter and constructive manslaughter.
Voluntary manslaughter occurs when a person kills another in a fit of rage or
great emotional distress often in response to the victims actions but the circumstances
surrounding the conduct lessen their responsibility. In the case of R v Duffy (1949)
the defendants conviction was reduced from murder to voluntary manslaughter due to
compelling mitigating circumstances. At the time of the offense the defendants mental
capacity was significantly impaired due to post-natal depression. A persons emotional
state and cognitive abilities can be significantly impacted by post-natal depression,
which can impair judgement and decision making. The defendants postpartum
depression was acknowledged by the court as having a significant impact on her
behavior and limiting her capacity to understand the full ramifications of her choices.
Consequently, this lessened her degree of responsibility and lessened the severity of
her offense. By considering the defendants mental condition and its effect on her
capacity to form intent or exercise control over her actions, the court sought to
achieve a fair and just outcome that balanced accountability with recognition of
mitigating circumstances.
Involuntary manslaughter refers to deaths that occur unintentionally, without
the perpetrator having any explicit purpose to inflict harm. This type of manslaughter
is generally caused by gross negligence or recklessness, in which the individual fails
to take the appropriate care and caution in a given scenario, resulting in lethal results.
Involuntary manslaughter, unlike murder or voluntary manslaughter, does not involve
an intentional desire to inflict injury.In the case of R v Adomako (1994), the
defendant, an experienced anaesthetist, was found criminally guilty for involuntary
manslaughter due to gross negligence during a surgery. The defendant's inability to
identify a disconnected oxygen supply tube, a fundamental error in the medical
process, resulted in the patient's death. Despite the fact that the defendant had no
intention of causing injury, his negligence played a direct role in the tragedy.The
court's decision in R v Adomako emphasized the idea that people in positions of
authority, such as healthcare professionals, are held to a greater level of care because
of the potential implications of their acts or inaction's. The case demonstrated the
importance of diligence, vigilance, and commitment to professional norms in avoiding
foreseeable harm to others. The court's conviction of the defendant for involuntary
manslaughter emphasized the necessity of accountability and the devastating
consequences of negligence, especially in professions where lives are entrusted to the
care of others.This case exemplifies how severe carelessness resulting to death can
result in criminal culpability, even in the absence of malevolent intent. It underscores
the idea that people must use reasonable care and attention in their acts to avoid
foreseeable harm, particularly in situations where the stakes are high, such as medical
operations. Finally, R v Adomako demonstrates the judicial system's dedication to
maintaining public safety and holding people accountable for activities that result in
regrettable deaths due to negligence or recklessness.
A legal concept known as constructive manslaughter covers circumstances in
which an unintentional fatality results from the performance of another illegal act.
Constructive manslaughter depends on committing an illegal act that causes another
person to die, as opposed to other types of manslaughter where the killing may not
have been intentional. Essentially, the illegal act establishes the foundation for a
constructive manslaughter prosecution by acting as the primary cause of death.The
defendant's acts in the R v. Franklin (1883) case demonstrated the components of
constructive manslaughter. The defendant hurled a stone towards a group of people
with the goal of striking a particular person out of rage. But instead of hitting the
intended target, the stone struck someone else, killing them. The defendant's tossing
of the stone was illegal even though it may not have been his intention to murder the
victim directly.
The idea that people can be prosecuted for the unexpected effects of their
illegal activities was demonstrated by the court's ruling in R v. Franklin. The
defendant threw the stone in a busy place carelessly, which resulted in a fatal ending
even though they had no intention of killing anyone. The court emphasized the legal
principle that people must be held responsible for the foreseeable consequences of
their unlawful conduct by finding the defendant guilty of constructive
manslaughter.This case highlights the significance of taking into account the causal
relationship between the unlawful act and the subsequent death and provides a
moving illustration of how constructive manslaughter functions within the judicial
system. It emphasizes the legal precept that people cannot avoid responsibility for the
inadvertent effects of their conduct only because they had no malicious intent. In the
end, R v. Franklin shows how the judicial system is dedicated to holding people
accountable for their acts when they cause death, even when the harm was not their
intention.
The distinguishing factor between murder and manslaughter, in addition to its
various subcategories, is established by legislative acts, judicial decisions, and
changing social conventions. By considering mitigating circumstances in addition to
the seriousness of the offence and the defendant's culpability, courts strive to strike a
balance between justice and fairness. By conducting a methodical examination of
case-specific particulars and legal doctrines, the judicial system strives to maintain the
integrity of the rule of law while concurrently encouraging reformation and
responsibility within the criminal justice system