3 elements of unlawful act manslaughter 1) The defendant must perform an unlawful act Key cases:
1) The defendant must perform an unlawful act - This means that the defendant must have committed a crime R V Lamb – if there is no unlawful act, then the
2) Which is dangerous requiring proof of intention or recklessness. Crimes of defendant cannot be guilty of unlawful act
3) Which causes the victim’s death negligence are not sufficient for unlawful act manslaughter. manslaughter.
- Since the defendant’s conduct must cause the victim’s death, DPP V Newbury and Jones – Did not intend or
2) The unlawful act must be the unlawful act is usually an assault (inflict some harm, not foresee
Involuntary manslaughter death
applies or harm.
when Held that the
the defendant did defendant
not intend to kill
dangerous GBH or death). does not have to foresee the risk of death actions.
or cause GBH, but the victim dies as a result of the defendant’s or
- Also the defendant must commit a positive AKA unlawful act for harm to be guilty of unlawful act manslaughter.
- R V Dawson and R V Watson this element to be satisfied, it cannot be an omission.
The defendant commits R Vthe
Franklin –Not
actus or theguilty as the
murder unlawful
(unlawful actact must
stated that ‘Dangerous’ be a criminal wrong
manslaughter) but does not have the mens rea.not a civil wrong.
means that the act carries the R V Lowe – the defendant killed the victim by
risk of some harm to some child neglect. It was held that the unlawful act
person, but the risk does not cannot be committed
Involuntaryby omission.
Manslaughter
Khan and Khan –It was held that the unlawful
have to be serious harm. (This
act cannot
Unlawful
be committed
Actby
Manslaughter
omission.
test is objective)
- As long as the act risks some
harm to some person, it
doesn’t even need to be
aimed atKey cases: It can be
a person.
Church
aimed at property.– the
Theunlawful
case act must be dangerous such as all sober and reasonable people would inevitably realise must subject the other person to, at least, the risk of
some harm
for this is Godfellow. (doesn’t have to be serious harm).
Larkin –The unlawful act doesn’t need to be targeted at the victim. [A-G ref NO2 – ‘all that is needed, once causation is established is an act creating a risk to
everyone.’]
Mitchell – same principle at Larkin the unlawful act doesn’t need to be targeted at the victim.
JM and SM - When assessing dangerousness, the obvious risk is of some harm, not a specific type of harm.
Godfellow –The unlawful act may be targeted at property instead of a person.
Dawson –The victim had a weak heart and died from fear.
Watson- The difference between Watson and Dawson is that age plays a massive factor.
, 3) Causation
Key cases:
- Causation: factual (BUT FOR test), legal (De Minimis rule and novus actus Cato - Because the defendant committed a positive, unlawful
interveniens) act, he was convicted of unlawful act manslaughter.
- Cato (1976) – when the defendant injects the victim, there is no break in the
chain of causation and therefore could be guilty of unlawful act manslaughter. Dalby –The defendant conviction was quashed as even though
- But if the victim injects themselves then the chain is broken. – Kennedy the defendant had committed an unlawful act, the victim’s
own act of self-injection was an intervening event which broke
the chain of causation. This was confirmed in Kennedy
Causation:
- Factual causation + legal causation need to be satisfied + need
to make sure there are no intervening acts.
Factual causation: Involuntary Manslaughter
- BUT FOR Test – BUT FOR the defendant’s conduct the victim
would not have died
Unlawful Act Manslaughter
- R V Pagett + R V White
Legal causation:
- De Minimis rule (the defendant’s act had to be the most Mens Rea of unlawful act manslaughter
substantial and operative cause of the death) or thing skull - The mens rea of unlawful act manslaughter is the same as
rule (take your victim as you find them) – R V Blaue the mens rea of the unlawful act.
- It must be shown that the defendant had the mens rea for
No Intervening acts/ no novus actus interveniens:
the unlawful act, which must be intention or reckless but
- Act of a third party – R V Pagett
- The act of the victim – R V Roberts + R V Williams
the defendant doesn’t have to foresee that the act is
- Medical intervention – R V Jordan + R V Smith + R V Cheshire dangerous to harm another: DPP V Newbury & Jones
1) The defendant must perform an unlawful act - This means that the defendant must have committed a crime R V Lamb – if there is no unlawful act, then the
2) Which is dangerous requiring proof of intention or recklessness. Crimes of defendant cannot be guilty of unlawful act
3) Which causes the victim’s death negligence are not sufficient for unlawful act manslaughter. manslaughter.
- Since the defendant’s conduct must cause the victim’s death, DPP V Newbury and Jones – Did not intend or
2) The unlawful act must be the unlawful act is usually an assault (inflict some harm, not foresee
Involuntary manslaughter death
applies or harm.
when Held that the
the defendant did defendant
not intend to kill
dangerous GBH or death). does not have to foresee the risk of death actions.
or cause GBH, but the victim dies as a result of the defendant’s or
- Also the defendant must commit a positive AKA unlawful act for harm to be guilty of unlawful act manslaughter.
- R V Dawson and R V Watson this element to be satisfied, it cannot be an omission.
The defendant commits R Vthe
Franklin –Not
actus or theguilty as the
murder unlawful
(unlawful actact must
stated that ‘Dangerous’ be a criminal wrong
manslaughter) but does not have the mens rea.not a civil wrong.
means that the act carries the R V Lowe – the defendant killed the victim by
risk of some harm to some child neglect. It was held that the unlawful act
person, but the risk does not cannot be committed
Involuntaryby omission.
Manslaughter
Khan and Khan –It was held that the unlawful
have to be serious harm. (This
act cannot
Unlawful
be committed
Actby
Manslaughter
omission.
test is objective)
- As long as the act risks some
harm to some person, it
doesn’t even need to be
aimed atKey cases: It can be
a person.
Church
aimed at property.– the
Theunlawful
case act must be dangerous such as all sober and reasonable people would inevitably realise must subject the other person to, at least, the risk of
some harm
for this is Godfellow. (doesn’t have to be serious harm).
Larkin –The unlawful act doesn’t need to be targeted at the victim. [A-G ref NO2 – ‘all that is needed, once causation is established is an act creating a risk to
everyone.’]
Mitchell – same principle at Larkin the unlawful act doesn’t need to be targeted at the victim.
JM and SM - When assessing dangerousness, the obvious risk is of some harm, not a specific type of harm.
Godfellow –The unlawful act may be targeted at property instead of a person.
Dawson –The victim had a weak heart and died from fear.
Watson- The difference between Watson and Dawson is that age plays a massive factor.
, 3) Causation
Key cases:
- Causation: factual (BUT FOR test), legal (De Minimis rule and novus actus Cato - Because the defendant committed a positive, unlawful
interveniens) act, he was convicted of unlawful act manslaughter.
- Cato (1976) – when the defendant injects the victim, there is no break in the
chain of causation and therefore could be guilty of unlawful act manslaughter. Dalby –The defendant conviction was quashed as even though
- But if the victim injects themselves then the chain is broken. – Kennedy the defendant had committed an unlawful act, the victim’s
own act of self-injection was an intervening event which broke
the chain of causation. This was confirmed in Kennedy
Causation:
- Factual causation + legal causation need to be satisfied + need
to make sure there are no intervening acts.
Factual causation: Involuntary Manslaughter
- BUT FOR Test – BUT FOR the defendant’s conduct the victim
would not have died
Unlawful Act Manslaughter
- R V Pagett + R V White
Legal causation:
- De Minimis rule (the defendant’s act had to be the most Mens Rea of unlawful act manslaughter
substantial and operative cause of the death) or thing skull - The mens rea of unlawful act manslaughter is the same as
rule (take your victim as you find them) – R V Blaue the mens rea of the unlawful act.
- It must be shown that the defendant had the mens rea for
No Intervening acts/ no novus actus interveniens:
the unlawful act, which must be intention or reckless but
- Act of a third party – R V Pagett
- The act of the victim – R V Roberts + R V Williams
the defendant doesn’t have to foresee that the act is
- Medical intervention – R V Jordan + R V Smith + R V Cheshire dangerous to harm another: DPP V Newbury & Jones
