Criminal Law: Unit 4
INVOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER
Outcomes
Manslaughter by gross negligence
One1.
could be criminally
Understand theliable for causing
elements death if for
required one unlawful
had been grossly
act andnegligent
gross(R v Bateman)
negligence
manslaughter and make sound judgements on how these offences apply in practice
Ordinary negligence would not suffice: just because a victim’s family might be able to sue for compensation for
2. Demonstrate a systematic knowledge and understanding of involuntary
a victim’s death in the civil courts, it did not automatically follow that criminal charges could be brought.
manslaughter and apply this to factual scenarios to determine criminal liability
3. Show– critical
R v Bateman awareness
A patient of the
died following general
negligent defence
medical of intoxication that operates to absolve a
treatment
D of criminal liability in a range of scenarios
Andrews v DPP - involved a death caused by dangerous driving. ”A very high degree of negligence is required to
be proved before the felony is established...”
Constructive Manslaughter
Manslaughter by gross negligence can be established if all of the following elements are present (R v
For constructive manslaughter the defendant must:
Adomako):
a)
a) Do anofunlawful
Duty care act;
b)
Which is dangerous; andexists is usually a matter for the jury once the judge has decided that there is
Whether a duty of care
c) Which causes the victim’s death a duty (R v Willoughby)
evidence capable of establishing
Theunlawful
However, actwhere there is a clear duty (e.g. doctor to patient, or a statutory duty), the judge could direct
the jury that a duty of care did exist
The b) Breach
D must have committed a crime requiring proof of intention or recklessness. Crimes of negligence will not
c) for
suffice A risk that the D’s
constructive conduct could
manslaughter cause
(e.g. death
careless driving).
In order to establish a charge of manslaughter by gross negligence, ‘the circumstances must be such
If there is no aunlawful
that act, prudent
reasonably the D cannot
person possibly be guilty
would have of constructive
foreseen manslaughter
a serious and obvious risk(Rnot
v Lamb)
merely of injury or
even of serious injury but of death’ (R v Singh)
Commonly the unlawful act will be an assault, although any offence requiring proof of intention or recklessness
‘In assessing reasonable foreseeability of serious and obvious risk of death in cases of gross negligence
will do.
manslaughter, it is not appropriate to take into account what the D would have known but for his or her
breach
The unlawful actofcould
duty’be
(R criminal
v Rose) damage (DPP v Newbury and Jones), burglary or theft, and need not be an
d) Causation
assault.
e) A jury’s conclusion that the D fell so far below the standards of the reasonable person in that situation
A failure to he
that actcan
cannot give rise
be labelled to anegligent
grossly charge andof constructive manslaughter.
deserving of criminal punishmentThe D must have committed
a positive
actIsfor
Ask: X’sthe unlawful
conduct act element
so bad in all theofcircumstances
the offence tothat
be established.
it amounts to a criminal act or omission?
Jurors would have equally differing opinions, and this is one of the main criticisms of the test for
R v Lowe - The D had neglected the child causing death and was convicted of constructive manslaughter of a
manslaughter by gross negligence
child. Held: The D’s conviction was quashed as no unlawful act had been committed.
To be punished for gross negligence: it need not be proved that he had any ‘criminal’ state of mind, i.e.
Example: Fred loads a shotgun with two cartridges taken from his pocket which contains both live and blank
intention or recklessness (R v Adomako)
cartridges. He fires the gun at Elaine, killing her. Fred claims he never intended to kill or cause grievous bodily
harm to for
Liability Elaine as he of
a charge thought he was firing
manslaughter a blank
by gross cartridge.
negligence canHebeonly meant
incurred to frighten
through her.omission to act (if
the D’s
there is a duty to act) (R v Khan) as well as through positive steps taken by the D (R v Adomako)
Murder? Fred cannot be guilty of murder, because he does not have the requisite mens rea of an intention to
killv or
R cause
Evans grievous
- Facts: Thebodily
D choseharm.
not He only medical
to seek intendedassistance
to frighten.when the victim overdosed from heroin, and the
victim died. She was convicted for gross negligence manslaughter.
Constructive manslaughter? Unlawful act - Fred cannot be liable under s 18 or s 20 of the OAPA 1861 as he
does not have the requisite mens rea (intention to cause grievous bodily harm, or intention or recklessness as
to the causing of some harm respectively). - As he admits he intended to frighten her, this could amount to an
assault
The occasioning
defence actual bodily
of intoxication harm
includes (OAPA
drugs 1861,
as well assalcohol.
47), or a common assault or battery.
Unlawful
A act must be dangerous
defence?
In deciding
Simply whether
arguing the unlawful
that one act wasisdangerous,
was intoxicated the question to ask is whether (2) a sober and reasonable
not a defence.
person who had (3) watched X throughout the whole of the unlawful act would think that what X did (1) carried
Intoxication as a defence
the risk of causing is important in relation to crimes requiring proof of intention or recklessness on the
some harm.
part of the D. Intoxication can only ever be a defence if it causes the D to lack the relevant MR for that offence.
1. ‘Dangerous’ means that the act carries the risk of some harm to some person, albeit not serious harm
If the D does have the requisite MR for the offence, ie intention or recklessness as required, intoxication is
(R v Church; DPP v Newbury; R v Dawson; R v Watson)
never a defence.
2. The test is entirely objective. It is whether all sober and reasonable people would think the act was
dangerous.
R v Kingston - The DWhether
had been the D didcoffee
given or notwhich,
is irrelevant
unknown(R vtoChurch;
him, had DPP v Newbury;
been R vdrugs.
spiked with Dawson;He R v Watson)
then
3. Theassaulted
indecently knowledge a young
given toboy. The
the D had
sober known paedophile
reasonable tendencies
person is that which he but claimed
would havethat he would
gained if he not
had have
been
indecently assaulted
present at thethe boy of
scene if he
thehad notand
crime been acting under
watched the effect
the whole of the
act being drugs. Held: It was not in itself
performed
sufficient to negative the necessary mental element of the offence. The necessary MR was established. The D’s
R v Bristow –could
intoxication Burglary amounts
not be to unlawful
relied upon + dangerous
to provide a defenceact
to as
theitcharge.
is objectively
The factdangerous.
that the DNote:
wouldit not
did not
have
become dangerous
committed simply
the offence if heathad
thebeen
pointsober
the burglars wereirrelevant.
is certainly disturbedIfbut he from the MR
had the very outset
for of thewhen
that crime burglary.
he
committed it, he is liable.
1
If the crime is one of negligence or strict liability, intoxication is irrelevant because such crimes have no MR
element.
Does intoxication always work as a defence if MR is absent?
INVOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER
Outcomes
Manslaughter by gross negligence
One1.
could be criminally
Understand theliable for causing
elements death if for
required one unlawful
had been grossly
act andnegligent
gross(R v Bateman)
negligence
manslaughter and make sound judgements on how these offences apply in practice
Ordinary negligence would not suffice: just because a victim’s family might be able to sue for compensation for
2. Demonstrate a systematic knowledge and understanding of involuntary
a victim’s death in the civil courts, it did not automatically follow that criminal charges could be brought.
manslaughter and apply this to factual scenarios to determine criminal liability
3. Show– critical
R v Bateman awareness
A patient of the
died following general
negligent defence
medical of intoxication that operates to absolve a
treatment
D of criminal liability in a range of scenarios
Andrews v DPP - involved a death caused by dangerous driving. ”A very high degree of negligence is required to
be proved before the felony is established...”
Constructive Manslaughter
Manslaughter by gross negligence can be established if all of the following elements are present (R v
For constructive manslaughter the defendant must:
Adomako):
a)
a) Do anofunlawful
Duty care act;
b)
Which is dangerous; andexists is usually a matter for the jury once the judge has decided that there is
Whether a duty of care
c) Which causes the victim’s death a duty (R v Willoughby)
evidence capable of establishing
Theunlawful
However, actwhere there is a clear duty (e.g. doctor to patient, or a statutory duty), the judge could direct
the jury that a duty of care did exist
The b) Breach
D must have committed a crime requiring proof of intention or recklessness. Crimes of negligence will not
c) for
suffice A risk that the D’s
constructive conduct could
manslaughter cause
(e.g. death
careless driving).
In order to establish a charge of manslaughter by gross negligence, ‘the circumstances must be such
If there is no aunlawful
that act, prudent
reasonably the D cannot
person possibly be guilty
would have of constructive
foreseen manslaughter
a serious and obvious risk(Rnot
v Lamb)
merely of injury or
even of serious injury but of death’ (R v Singh)
Commonly the unlawful act will be an assault, although any offence requiring proof of intention or recklessness
‘In assessing reasonable foreseeability of serious and obvious risk of death in cases of gross negligence
will do.
manslaughter, it is not appropriate to take into account what the D would have known but for his or her
breach
The unlawful actofcould
duty’be
(R criminal
v Rose) damage (DPP v Newbury and Jones), burglary or theft, and need not be an
d) Causation
assault.
e) A jury’s conclusion that the D fell so far below the standards of the reasonable person in that situation
A failure to he
that actcan
cannot give rise
be labelled to anegligent
grossly charge andof constructive manslaughter.
deserving of criminal punishmentThe D must have committed
a positive
actIsfor
Ask: X’sthe unlawful
conduct act element
so bad in all theofcircumstances
the offence tothat
be established.
it amounts to a criminal act or omission?
Jurors would have equally differing opinions, and this is one of the main criticisms of the test for
R v Lowe - The D had neglected the child causing death and was convicted of constructive manslaughter of a
manslaughter by gross negligence
child. Held: The D’s conviction was quashed as no unlawful act had been committed.
To be punished for gross negligence: it need not be proved that he had any ‘criminal’ state of mind, i.e.
Example: Fred loads a shotgun with two cartridges taken from his pocket which contains both live and blank
intention or recklessness (R v Adomako)
cartridges. He fires the gun at Elaine, killing her. Fred claims he never intended to kill or cause grievous bodily
harm to for
Liability Elaine as he of
a charge thought he was firing
manslaughter a blank
by gross cartridge.
negligence canHebeonly meant
incurred to frighten
through her.omission to act (if
the D’s
there is a duty to act) (R v Khan) as well as through positive steps taken by the D (R v Adomako)
Murder? Fred cannot be guilty of murder, because he does not have the requisite mens rea of an intention to
killv or
R cause
Evans grievous
- Facts: Thebodily
D choseharm.
not He only medical
to seek intendedassistance
to frighten.when the victim overdosed from heroin, and the
victim died. She was convicted for gross negligence manslaughter.
Constructive manslaughter? Unlawful act - Fred cannot be liable under s 18 or s 20 of the OAPA 1861 as he
does not have the requisite mens rea (intention to cause grievous bodily harm, or intention or recklessness as
to the causing of some harm respectively). - As he admits he intended to frighten her, this could amount to an
assault
The occasioning
defence actual bodily
of intoxication harm
includes (OAPA
drugs 1861,
as well assalcohol.
47), or a common assault or battery.
Unlawful
A act must be dangerous
defence?
In deciding
Simply whether
arguing the unlawful
that one act wasisdangerous,
was intoxicated the question to ask is whether (2) a sober and reasonable
not a defence.
person who had (3) watched X throughout the whole of the unlawful act would think that what X did (1) carried
Intoxication as a defence
the risk of causing is important in relation to crimes requiring proof of intention or recklessness on the
some harm.
part of the D. Intoxication can only ever be a defence if it causes the D to lack the relevant MR for that offence.
1. ‘Dangerous’ means that the act carries the risk of some harm to some person, albeit not serious harm
If the D does have the requisite MR for the offence, ie intention or recklessness as required, intoxication is
(R v Church; DPP v Newbury; R v Dawson; R v Watson)
never a defence.
2. The test is entirely objective. It is whether all sober and reasonable people would think the act was
dangerous.
R v Kingston - The DWhether
had been the D didcoffee
given or notwhich,
is irrelevant
unknown(R vtoChurch;
him, had DPP v Newbury;
been R vdrugs.
spiked with Dawson;He R v Watson)
then
3. Theassaulted
indecently knowledge a young
given toboy. The
the D had
sober known paedophile
reasonable tendencies
person is that which he but claimed
would havethat he would
gained if he not
had have
been
indecently assaulted
present at thethe boy of
scene if he
thehad notand
crime been acting under
watched the effect
the whole of the
act being drugs. Held: It was not in itself
performed
sufficient to negative the necessary mental element of the offence. The necessary MR was established. The D’s
R v Bristow –could
intoxication Burglary amounts
not be to unlawful
relied upon + dangerous
to provide a defenceact
to as
theitcharge.
is objectively
The factdangerous.
that the DNote:
wouldit not
did not
have
become dangerous
committed simply
the offence if heathad
thebeen
pointsober
the burglars wereirrelevant.
is certainly disturbedIfbut he from the MR
had the very outset
for of thewhen
that crime burglary.
he
committed it, he is liable.
1
If the crime is one of negligence or strict liability, intoxication is irrelevant because such crimes have no MR
element.
Does intoxication always work as a defence if MR is absent?
