Distinguishing between voluntary and involuntary manlaughter

Got a AQA a level criminal law mock next week. One thing i find difficult to spot in scenarios is whether i apply LOC/DR or if i go to UAM and GNM?
another issue is deciding whether an injury is ABH/GBH 20/GBH 18?

Can anyone help with how to know what is what?

The important thing to know about voluntary manslaughter is that the offence of murder will be present. Those defences are what makes it voluntary manslaughter - it’s really murder + defence to murder = voluntary manslaughter. If you’re lacking the intention for murder then move to involuntary manslaughter, and the two types are much easier to distinguish.

With regards to the non-fatal offences you’re really just looking at the level of harm to distinguish between ABH and GBH, and then the intention is what distinguishes s20 from s18.

For all of these, if you think more than one offence is possible then don’t be afraid to reason it through and provide alternatives.

Hope this helps!

My understanding is
Involtary Vs Voluntary manslaughter= the mens rea, specially intention.

voluntary manslaughter is when the defendent intended to kill/Cause GBH but this a reduced offence/sentence applies
(e.g Murder to manslaughter) because
a defence like intoxication or loss of control or diminished responsibility has been used and accepted.

Involtary is when the defendent intend didn't kill or cause GBH but death occurred anyway.
The difference between S20 Vs S18 is that in the mens rea S20 the defendent can either intend or recklessly intend to cause GBH/Malicious Wounding whilst in S18 the defendent must intend
there is not recklessness.

S47 is ABH (actual boildly harm) which is defined in R Vs Miller as "any hurt or injury interfering with the health or comfort of the victim"
The offense must be formed by a
assault/battery causing ABH.

hey thanks for your response , do you have any examples of what would be say battery , what would be abh and what would be gbh?
And correct me if im wrong but GBH doesnt require any assault or battery?

hi thanks for your reply , i think i sort of get in now. Will the question ,say the 30 markers, direct me as to whether its vol or invol or will i have to discover this myself and if it is invol do i use apply both UAM and GNM?

Battery - touching someone, maybe punching them depending on the damage it causes, throwing a drink (this is a popular one in exams, or it at least used to be), basically anything that looks like a battery case.

ABH - some actual harm short of GBH, so maybe like a black eye, bruising - note that in your law exams you have to use the legal definitions even though prosecutorial practice would put different injuries at levels less serious than expected.

GBH - broken bones, wounds (don't forget this one - use the Eisenhower definition), anything described as 'severe' that you think fits the GBH definition.

You are right, GBH is not a compound offence.

You need to look at practice questions to see what typical phrasing is. In an exam, only apply what you think is relevant unless the question is asking you to talk about a specific offence/offences, in which case that offence will be very relevant in the scenario provided.

what would you say a cut amounts to or swelling?

A cut is wounding, so s20 automatically provided it meets the Eisenhower definition (which really it should unless something bizarre has happened). Swelling - it would depend on context, and if you're not sure you can make a case either way if you like.

so when i see a cut 99% of the time itll be a wounding. not an abh , cool i get that ty. Say if its unconsciousness , thats not abh right its gbh? because T v DPP said loss of consciouness is abh ( suggesting its not pure unconsciousness?)

Virtually all the time. If there's blood there's a wound pretty much.
If the caselaw says it then sure. However I see that V only lost consciousness briefly so I'd say that prolonged unconsciousness would be GBH.

ahahah thank you , i have some more queries if you dont mind answering them?

Sure

thank you. So if someone is intoxicated but they have alcohol dependency syndrome do i use defence of intoxication or Diminished responsibility/insanity? and slightly unrelated but do you have any practice questions for law that dont arise from any recent papers as ive done them all?

You'd use Automatism though it's unlikely to satisfy it due to prior fault.

Automatism is caused by an external factor (aka, the choice to drink alcohol) Insanity is only covered by internal factors.

isnt it more suited towards DR then following dietschmann

Yes.

Have you looked at any of the CPS guides by the way? They set out the details of most offences and defences and can be usually pretty useful if you're unsure of a situation.

do you have any tips to distinguish between whether one applies voluntary or invol manslaughter or is it the same as what others have mentioned

thank you. So if someone is intoxicated but they have alcohol dependency syndrome do i use defence of intoxication or Diminished responsibility/insanity? and slightly unrelated but do you have any practice questions for law that dont arise from any recent papers as ive done them all?