If someone has died then first need to consider murder and voluntary manslaughter. When MR for these have failed, then
need to consider other homocide offences.
1.Involuntary Manslaughter (by individuals).
CONSTRUCTIVE MANSLAUGHTER GROSS NEGLIGENCE MANSLAUGHTER
Actus Reus: commit an unlawful act which is dangerous and Actus Reus: 5 part test outlined by Lord Mackay in R v
causes victims death. Adomako
Commit an unlawful act 1. Duty of care owed - similar to when there’s a duty
• Act can be any unlawful act, does not need to be an assault to omissions, but is for the jury to decide
(DPP v Newbury and Jones - criminal damage of throwing a A. R v Khan: drug dealer who did know client was
stone onto a train and killing train driver) not liable for her death
• If there is no unlawful act there is no constructive murder B. R v Evans: half sister who supplied victim with
(Lamb) drugs and did not help when she overdosed
• Exception: unlawful act cannot be an omission to act, must was liable for death due to duty owed
be a positive act (Lowe - neglecting a child leading to death 2. Breach of that duty
does not count) 3. Risk that D’s conduct could cause death
A. Must be that a reasonable person would
Must be dangerous foresee a serious and obvious risk of death, not
• 3 part objective test (R v Church; Ball; Dawson; Watson) injury/serious injury (Singh)
◦ Act carries the risk of some harm to some person B. Not appropriate to take into account whether D
(does not have to be the victim) would have known (Rose)
◦ A sober and reasonable person would think that the 4. Evidence that breach caused death of victim
act is dangerous 5. Jury believes defendant’s act fell so far below the
◦ The sober and reasonable person had the knowledge as standards of a reasonable person that it can be
if he had watched the whole sequence of events considered ‘grossly negligent’ and ‘deserving of
criminal punishment’ - grossly negligent is a high
Caused victims death standard
• Ordinary use of causation for murder:
◦ Factual: ‘but for’ test (R v White) Mens Rea: negligent offence therefore no MR needed
◦ Legal: common sense
◦ Both left for the jury to decide
Mens Rea: the same as the MR for the unlawful act
• Must be a crime of basic (recklessness - e.g. s.47 OAPA
1861) or specific intent (e.g. s.18 OAPA 1861), not negligence
(e.g. dangerous/careless driving)
DEATH BY DANGEROUS DRIVING (s.1 Road Traffic Act
1988)
DEATH BY CARELESS DRIVING (s.2B RTA 1988)
Actus Reus
(Consider standard of driving does not meet
• D causes someone’s death (causation)
‘dangerous’ test)
• Driving a mechanically propeller vehicle
• Dangerously
Actus Reus
◦ D drove so far below the standards expected of a
• D causes someone’s death (causation)
careful and competent driver it would be obvious to a
• Driving a mechanically propelled vehicle
competent and careful driver that it was dangerous
• Without due care and attention or without
(objective test - needs to be proved by CPS)
reasonable consideration for other people
• On a road or other public place
◦ Low threshold
• On a road or public place
Mens Rea: no MR (negligence offence)
Mens Rea: no MR (negligence offence)
*often regarded as a lesser charge of manslaughter (max
sentencing 14 years)
need to consider other homocide offences.
1.Involuntary Manslaughter (by individuals).
CONSTRUCTIVE MANSLAUGHTER GROSS NEGLIGENCE MANSLAUGHTER
Actus Reus: commit an unlawful act which is dangerous and Actus Reus: 5 part test outlined by Lord Mackay in R v
causes victims death. Adomako
Commit an unlawful act 1. Duty of care owed - similar to when there’s a duty
• Act can be any unlawful act, does not need to be an assault to omissions, but is for the jury to decide
(DPP v Newbury and Jones - criminal damage of throwing a A. R v Khan: drug dealer who did know client was
stone onto a train and killing train driver) not liable for her death
• If there is no unlawful act there is no constructive murder B. R v Evans: half sister who supplied victim with
(Lamb) drugs and did not help when she overdosed
• Exception: unlawful act cannot be an omission to act, must was liable for death due to duty owed
be a positive act (Lowe - neglecting a child leading to death 2. Breach of that duty
does not count) 3. Risk that D’s conduct could cause death
A. Must be that a reasonable person would
Must be dangerous foresee a serious and obvious risk of death, not
• 3 part objective test (R v Church; Ball; Dawson; Watson) injury/serious injury (Singh)
◦ Act carries the risk of some harm to some person B. Not appropriate to take into account whether D
(does not have to be the victim) would have known (Rose)
◦ A sober and reasonable person would think that the 4. Evidence that breach caused death of victim
act is dangerous 5. Jury believes defendant’s act fell so far below the
◦ The sober and reasonable person had the knowledge as standards of a reasonable person that it can be
if he had watched the whole sequence of events considered ‘grossly negligent’ and ‘deserving of
criminal punishment’ - grossly negligent is a high
Caused victims death standard
• Ordinary use of causation for murder:
◦ Factual: ‘but for’ test (R v White) Mens Rea: negligent offence therefore no MR needed
◦ Legal: common sense
◦ Both left for the jury to decide
Mens Rea: the same as the MR for the unlawful act
• Must be a crime of basic (recklessness - e.g. s.47 OAPA
1861) or specific intent (e.g. s.18 OAPA 1861), not negligence
(e.g. dangerous/careless driving)
DEATH BY DANGEROUS DRIVING (s.1 Road Traffic Act
1988)
DEATH BY CARELESS DRIVING (s.2B RTA 1988)
Actus Reus
(Consider standard of driving does not meet
• D causes someone’s death (causation)
‘dangerous’ test)
• Driving a mechanically propeller vehicle
• Dangerously
Actus Reus
◦ D drove so far below the standards expected of a
• D causes someone’s death (causation)
careful and competent driver it would be obvious to a
• Driving a mechanically propelled vehicle
competent and careful driver that it was dangerous
• Without due care and attention or without
(objective test - needs to be proved by CPS)
reasonable consideration for other people
• On a road or other public place
◦ Low threshold
• On a road or public place
Mens Rea: no MR (negligence offence)
Mens Rea: no MR (negligence offence)
*often regarded as a lesser charge of manslaughter (max
sentencing 14 years)
