- involuntary manslaughter is an unlawful killing where the D doesn’t have
intention. It is a charge in itself.
Involuntary manslaughter - the actus rues for murder is present, but the mens rea is not.
- 2 main ways of committing involuntary manslaughter: unlawful act
manslaughter and gross negligence manslaughter
- the liability for death is built up or ‘constructed’ from the D’s act (known
as constructive manslaughter).
Unlawful Act - liable even if the D didn’t realise death/injury might occur.
requirements - 4 requirements: (1) D must do an unlawful act (2) the act must be
dangerous: objective test, (3) the act must cause the death and (4) the D
must have the required mens rea for the unlawful act.
The death must be caused by an unlawful act, which must be a criminal
offence. A civil wrong/tort is not enough.
R v Lamb: Lamb and his friend were fooling around with a revolver. They
all knew it was loaded but didn’t believe it would fire because of the
Unlawful Act position of the bullets. Lamb pointed the gun at his friend and pulled the
trigger, killing him. It was held that the D had not done an unlawful act.
There was no assault as the friend did not fear violence.
R v Franklin: appellant through a box into the sea, which hit a swimmer
who died. He was not liable as box throwing is not an unlawful act.
There must be an act: an omission cannot create liability.
(1) Unlawful Act R v Lowe: D neglected his son and he died. The court of appeal quashed the
conviction of manslaughter as neglect involved a failure to act, and this
could not support a conviction for unlawful act manslaughter.
- in many cases, the unlawful act will be some kind of non-fatal offence, but
any criminal offence can form the unlawful act.
Criminal damage: DPP v Newbury
Boys threw a paving slab off a railway bridge and it went through a
window, killing a guard. No requirement that the D foresees that harm will
result from actions. They committed criminal damage, so were liable.
Unlawful Act
Arson: R v GoodFellow
The appellant wanted to move away from harassment, so set fire to his
house, making it look as if he had been petrol bombed, so that the council
would re-house him in a better place. But, his wife, son and son’s girlfriend
all died in the fire. He was convicted of manslaughter.
, Burglary: Watson 1989
The D broke into an old man’s house but ran off after the victim shouted at
him. The victim suffered a heart attack and died 90 mins after the break in.
He was not liable as they couldn’t prove the break in had caused the heart
attack.
Robbery: Dawson 1985
Unlawful Act: criminal
The Ds attempted to rob a petrol station with a pickaxe and replica guns.
offence examples continued
The victim sounded an alarm and they left, but the V suffered a fatal heart
attack. The Ds were not liable for the death as they couldn’t have known
that the victim had a heart disease.
Administering a noxious substance: Cato 1976
The D purchased heroin and invited people to share it. They injected one
another and one of them died. The Defendant was convicted.
- the act must be dangerous on an objective test ‘reasonable man’
- R v Church: held that the unlawful act must be one which a reasonable
man would determine dangerous.
- therefore, the risk need only be of ‘some harm.’ The harm does not need to
be serious.
- if a sober reasonable man realised that the unlawful act might cause some
injury, then this part is satisfied. It doesn’t matter that the D didn’t realise
(2) Dangerous Act
there was any risk of harm to another person.
- R v Larkin: the D threatened a man with a cut-throat razor to frighten
him. His drunk wife tried to intervene but fell on the blade and died. He was
convicted because the act of threatening the man was a technical assault and
it was also a dangerous act, which was likely to injure someone. Illustrates
that there needs to be an unlawful act that on an objective viewpoint, carries
some risk if harm.
- it is enough that the sober and reasonable person would foresee some
harm, not the actual harm that was done.
- R v JM + SM: the Ds were involved in a fight with a few doormen in a
nightclub. One doorman had a renal artery aneurysm and died. JM+ SM
were charged with manslaughter (affray being the unlawful act).
- unlawful act does not have to be aimed at a person, it can be aimed at
property: R v GoodFellow
Application of a dangerous - the risk of harm refers to physical harm. Something that causes fear isn’t
act sufficient: R v Dawson
- however, where a reasonable person would be aware of the victim’s frailty
and the risk of physical harm to him, then the D will be liable: R v Watson
- burglary is not normally a dangerous act but if it’s carried out in such a
way that makes it dangerous, it can be classed as so. E.g., PC Andrew
(stealing bikes, ended up dragging the PC from the back of their car)
- Bristow, Dunn & Delay: the owner of a car repair shop tried to stop the
Ds and was run over and killed by them as they were escaping after a
burglary.
intention. It is a charge in itself.
Involuntary manslaughter - the actus rues for murder is present, but the mens rea is not.
- 2 main ways of committing involuntary manslaughter: unlawful act
manslaughter and gross negligence manslaughter
- the liability for death is built up or ‘constructed’ from the D’s act (known
as constructive manslaughter).
Unlawful Act - liable even if the D didn’t realise death/injury might occur.
requirements - 4 requirements: (1) D must do an unlawful act (2) the act must be
dangerous: objective test, (3) the act must cause the death and (4) the D
must have the required mens rea for the unlawful act.
The death must be caused by an unlawful act, which must be a criminal
offence. A civil wrong/tort is not enough.
R v Lamb: Lamb and his friend were fooling around with a revolver. They
all knew it was loaded but didn’t believe it would fire because of the
Unlawful Act position of the bullets. Lamb pointed the gun at his friend and pulled the
trigger, killing him. It was held that the D had not done an unlawful act.
There was no assault as the friend did not fear violence.
R v Franklin: appellant through a box into the sea, which hit a swimmer
who died. He was not liable as box throwing is not an unlawful act.
There must be an act: an omission cannot create liability.
(1) Unlawful Act R v Lowe: D neglected his son and he died. The court of appeal quashed the
conviction of manslaughter as neglect involved a failure to act, and this
could not support a conviction for unlawful act manslaughter.
- in many cases, the unlawful act will be some kind of non-fatal offence, but
any criminal offence can form the unlawful act.
Criminal damage: DPP v Newbury
Boys threw a paving slab off a railway bridge and it went through a
window, killing a guard. No requirement that the D foresees that harm will
result from actions. They committed criminal damage, so were liable.
Unlawful Act
Arson: R v GoodFellow
The appellant wanted to move away from harassment, so set fire to his
house, making it look as if he had been petrol bombed, so that the council
would re-house him in a better place. But, his wife, son and son’s girlfriend
all died in the fire. He was convicted of manslaughter.
, Burglary: Watson 1989
The D broke into an old man’s house but ran off after the victim shouted at
him. The victim suffered a heart attack and died 90 mins after the break in.
He was not liable as they couldn’t prove the break in had caused the heart
attack.
Robbery: Dawson 1985
Unlawful Act: criminal
The Ds attempted to rob a petrol station with a pickaxe and replica guns.
offence examples continued
The victim sounded an alarm and they left, but the V suffered a fatal heart
attack. The Ds were not liable for the death as they couldn’t have known
that the victim had a heart disease.
Administering a noxious substance: Cato 1976
The D purchased heroin and invited people to share it. They injected one
another and one of them died. The Defendant was convicted.
- the act must be dangerous on an objective test ‘reasonable man’
- R v Church: held that the unlawful act must be one which a reasonable
man would determine dangerous.
- therefore, the risk need only be of ‘some harm.’ The harm does not need to
be serious.
- if a sober reasonable man realised that the unlawful act might cause some
injury, then this part is satisfied. It doesn’t matter that the D didn’t realise
(2) Dangerous Act
there was any risk of harm to another person.
- R v Larkin: the D threatened a man with a cut-throat razor to frighten
him. His drunk wife tried to intervene but fell on the blade and died. He was
convicted because the act of threatening the man was a technical assault and
it was also a dangerous act, which was likely to injure someone. Illustrates
that there needs to be an unlawful act that on an objective viewpoint, carries
some risk if harm.
- it is enough that the sober and reasonable person would foresee some
harm, not the actual harm that was done.
- R v JM + SM: the Ds were involved in a fight with a few doormen in a
nightclub. One doorman had a renal artery aneurysm and died. JM+ SM
were charged with manslaughter (affray being the unlawful act).
- unlawful act does not have to be aimed at a person, it can be aimed at
property: R v GoodFellow
Application of a dangerous - the risk of harm refers to physical harm. Something that causes fear isn’t
act sufficient: R v Dawson
- however, where a reasonable person would be aware of the victim’s frailty
and the risk of physical harm to him, then the D will be liable: R v Watson
- burglary is not normally a dangerous act but if it’s carried out in such a
way that makes it dangerous, it can be classed as so. E.g., PC Andrew
(stealing bikes, ended up dragging the PC from the back of their car)
- Bristow, Dunn & Delay: the owner of a car repair shop tried to stop the
Ds and was run over and killed by them as they were escaping after a
burglary.
