Involuntary Manslaughter

Involuntary Manslaughter

Unlawful Act Manslaughter

Actus reus

Involuntary manslaughter has the same actus reus

as murder (unlawful killing) but a different mens

rea. Murder requires an intention to kill or to

cause grievous bodily harm, whereas involuntary

manslaughter does not state what the required

mens rea is, just that it is something other than

the intention to kill or to cause grievous bodily

harm.

Involuntary manslaughter

Voluntary and involuntary manslaughter

In cases of voluntary manslaughter, the defendant

commits murder but has one of the three partial

defences contained in the Homicide Act 1957.

Involuntary manslaughter is a separate crime.

Involuntary manslaughter

Types of involuntary manslaughter

Involuntary manslaughter

There are two types of involuntary manslaughter:

• constructive manslaughter (unlawful and dangerous act)

• gross negligence manslaughter

Comparing types of involuntary manslaughter

• Constructive manslaughter is also known as

unlawful and dangerous act manslaughter.

• Gross negligence manslaughter is based on the

rules of civil negligence, with the extra

requirement of risk of death. It was established

in the case of R v Adomako (1994).

Involuntary manslaughter

Constructive (Unlawful act) manslaughter

Involuntary manslaughter: constructive

Elements

• The act must be unlawful. The case of Lamb (1967) stated that the unlawful act must also be a criminal offence rather than a tort (civil wrong).

•The unlawful act must be considered dangerous. The test for dangerousness was established in R v Church (1967). It is an objective test in that the ordinary reasonable person would see a risk of some harm.

•Substantial cause of death

• Constructive manslaughter requires an unlawful act – an omission is not sufficient (R v Lowe, 1973).

• The transferred malice rule applies (R v Mitchell, 1985).

R v Church (1966)

In this case, the Court of Appeal established the

test for dangerousness. The unlawful act must be

such as ‘all sober and reasonable people would

inevitably recognise must subject the other

person to, at least, the risk of some harm

resulting therefrom, albeit not serious harm’.

Involuntary manslaughter: constructive

Church (1966)

• It need not be the accused who necessarily foresaw the harm, but any ‘sober and reasonable’ person

• The risk may be only ‘some harm’, not necessarily serious harm

• The harm need not be aimed at the victim – Mitchell (1983)

• The harm intended must be actual physical harm – Dawson (1985)

• Dangerous act may not be intended to cause harm to a person – Goodfellow (1986)

Causation

• The normal rules of causation apply.

Involuntary manslaughter: constructive

Substantial cause of death

• The act must be the substantial cause of death

• Same principles such as chain of causation and thin rule apply

• Corion-Auguiste (2004)

• Kennedy (2007) contrast with Cato

• Carey (2006)

• A-G ref (No.4 of 1980) (1982)

Mens rea

• The defendant does not require any mens rea that shows that he or she intended or foresaw a risk of death. Instead, the defendant must have the mens rea required for the unlawful and dangerous act.

• R v Lamb (1967): the defendant killed his best friend with a revolver. He did not have the appropriate mens rea, as neither of the men thought the gun would fire. He was not liable.

• The Goodfellow test (1986) summarises constructive manslaughter.

Involuntary manslaughter: constructive

• Newbury and Jones (1976)

• Le Brun (1991)

Overlap between GN & UAM

• Goodfellow

Extras

Unlawful act manslaughter

• There is no evaluation of this area so you only need the current law and a few case examples in support

• This type of manslaughter is also called constructive manslaughter

• It is ‘constructed’ from three elements

• The act must be a crime itself – Lamb

• It must be an act not an omission – Khan

• Look up the following cases. It was manslaughter rather than murder in each. What was the unlawful act?

• Nedrick

• Woollin

• Pagett

• This is an objective test – Church• Would a reasonable person see a risk of

some harm resulting from the act?• The act need not be aimed at the victim –

Mitchell• The risk must be of ‘some harm’, not just

fear• Compare Dawson and Watson (see

worksheet)

• Causation is an important element in manslaughter, as it is in murder. The rules are the same

• Look at Cato, Dalby and Kennedy (see worksheet)

• It now seems clear that if the victim self-administers the drug, the supplier will not be liable for manslaughter if V dies

• There must be an active participation (as in Cato)

• In Nedrick the unlawful act was arson (a type of criminal damage)

• A reasonable person would see a risk of some harm resulting from setting fire to a residential house

• The criminal damage caused the death as

the child died in the fire

• In Woollin, the throwing of the baby was unlawful, a type of assault

• A reasonable person would see a risk of some harm resulting from throwing a baby across a room

• The throwing of the baby directly caused its death

• In Pagett, shooting at the police was the unlawful act

• A reasonable person would see a risk of some harm resulting from shooting at the police

• The police returning fire was foreseeable so did not break the chain of causation between D shooting at them and the death of the girl

• There is no special mens rea for this type of manslaughter

• It is the mens rea for the unlawful act

• Which is either intent or subjective recklessness, most often the latter

• There is, therefore, no need to prove mens rea as regards the death, only the unlawful act

• The mens rea for criminal damage is intent or subjective recklessness as to whether property is damaged

• In Hancock & Shankland it would be enough to prove they recognised the risk of damaging property and went ahead anyway

• They threw a concrete block onto a taxi so would have recognised the risk of damage to the road, even if not the car

• They had mens rea for the unlawful act, this act caused the death, so it was manslaughter

• In Khan gross negligence manslaughter was considered but for this D must owe V a duty of care

• None was found in Khan but it was considered again in Dias

• The CA said gross negligence manslaughter would be possible in certain circumstances if a duty could be established

• See gross negligence manslaughter for more. In an exam you may need to discuss both