8. Involuntary Manslaughter
An unlawful homicide commited without the mens rea for murder is involuntary
manslaughter. The three types; unlawful act manslaughter (constructie manslaughter), gross
negligence manslaughter, and reckless manslaughter.
Constructve manslaughter (unlawful act manslaughter
The leading authority on this class of manslaughter is DPP v Newbury and Jones [1997].
This ofence is either constructie or unlawful act manslaughter, and the terms are
interchangeable. It is called constructie manslaughter because liability for manslaughter is built
up from a baseline of another crime.
As the ofence requires a ‘base’ crime on which to build liability, the prosecuton must therefore
proie there is a crime (an unlawful act) frst, and then that death was caused; hence unlawful
act manslaughter. What the ttle unlawful act omits, howeier, is that the act must also be
dangerous. To establish liability, the prosecuton must proie;
A. D commited an act
B. That act is unlawful
C. That act is dangerous
D. And that the act causes V to die.
Exam Tip* When talking about the four stages aboie, illustrate each stage with cases, and make
sure you are able to apply the law to the queston.
The defnitonal elements of unlawful act manslaughter
D does an act
There must be an act and that act must be intentonal (deliberate rather than say negligent).
Where death is caused by an omission and the prosecuton cannot proie murder, the only forms
of manslaughter aiailable are the reckless or gross negligence forms (Lowe [1997] .
The act must be unlawful
First, an act which is lawful cannot be used as the basis for unlawful act manslaughter because
of the manner in which it was carried out. For example, driiing is lawful, so there can be no
unlawful act manslaughter by careless driiing which causes death (Andrews v DPP [1937] .
Second, the prosecuton must proie a complete base crime has been commited, and that
means both the actus reus and mens rea of the base crime (JF and NE [2015] .
Lamb [1967] 2 QB 981;
D, jokingly, pointed a reiolier at V, who joined in the game. The reiolier had two liie bullets
which weren’ t in the chamber opposite the barrel when D pulled the trigger. The chamber
rotated before fring and a bullet was dispensed, killing V. The Court of Appeal held that as the
prosecuton had been unable to proie D had the mens rea for assault (intenton or recklessness
to cause V to apprehend immediate unlawful harm) there was no complete base crime and
therefore no manslaughter. – Court held that mens rea was an essental ingredient in unlawful
act manslaughter, and the mens rea is that of the base crime.
, There is no restricton on the type of crime which can be relied on for an unlawful act
manslaughter base crime, and it does not haie to be aimed at another person (Goodfellow
(1986 – proiided it is dangerous.
The act must be dangerous
Exam tp* Make sure you know how to explain the element of dangerousness. Learn the main
cases cited in the secton and apply to the law queston.
The unlawful act (the base crime) must be dangerous. So, what is the test for dangerousness?
Established in R v Church [1996], the test for dangerous is “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 (physical harm resultng therefrom, albeit not serious harm.” Church
test – often refers back to what would a sober and reasonable person know if they knew the
same facts as D and based on this, was the actons of D dangerous?
The tests purpose is to assess whether the act is dangerous, and it is if;
1. A sober and reasonable person
2. would ineiitably recognise
3. the act might subject V
4. to the risk of some physical harm
The act must cause V’ s death
The prosecuton must proie that D’ s unlawful and dangerous act caused the iictm to die. Note
– this is not the same as saying that D must cause V’ s death. The diference arses in a case
where D does some acts to V which are unlawful and dangerous and some which are not.
For example, D throws rocks at V and shouts abuse at V. If V dies from a heart atack it would
need to be shown that it was the throwing of rocks (which was unlawful and dangerous) which
caused the death and not the abuse (which would be neither unlawful nor dangerous).
Critcism of constructie manslaughter
- Ofence is too broad
- To apply the label ‘manslaughterer’ to the conduct of a person who eniisaged no more
than a batery is disproportonate and unfair (think of principle of fair labelling)
- The present law atributes too much weight to chance (its only luck that makes the
diference between common assault and 6 months imprisonment and manslaughter
with maximum life imprisonment)
Gross negligence manslaughter
The leading case is R v Adomako (1995 . D was an anaesthetst who failed to notce when a
patent’ s tube became disconnected from a ientlator. The patent sufered cardiac arrest and
died. The House of Lords held that in cases of manslaughter by criminal negligence inioliing a
breach of duty, the ordinary principles of the law of negligence applied to ascertain whether D
had been in breach of a duty of care towards V, whether it caused the death of V, and if so,
whether it should be characterised as gross negligence and therefore a crime.
An unlawful homicide commited without the mens rea for murder is involuntary
manslaughter. The three types; unlawful act manslaughter (constructie manslaughter), gross
negligence manslaughter, and reckless manslaughter.
Constructve manslaughter (unlawful act manslaughter
The leading authority on this class of manslaughter is DPP v Newbury and Jones [1997].
This ofence is either constructie or unlawful act manslaughter, and the terms are
interchangeable. It is called constructie manslaughter because liability for manslaughter is built
up from a baseline of another crime.
As the ofence requires a ‘base’ crime on which to build liability, the prosecuton must therefore
proie there is a crime (an unlawful act) frst, and then that death was caused; hence unlawful
act manslaughter. What the ttle unlawful act omits, howeier, is that the act must also be
dangerous. To establish liability, the prosecuton must proie;
A. D commited an act
B. That act is unlawful
C. That act is dangerous
D. And that the act causes V to die.
Exam Tip* When talking about the four stages aboie, illustrate each stage with cases, and make
sure you are able to apply the law to the queston.
The defnitonal elements of unlawful act manslaughter
D does an act
There must be an act and that act must be intentonal (deliberate rather than say negligent).
Where death is caused by an omission and the prosecuton cannot proie murder, the only forms
of manslaughter aiailable are the reckless or gross negligence forms (Lowe [1997] .
The act must be unlawful
First, an act which is lawful cannot be used as the basis for unlawful act manslaughter because
of the manner in which it was carried out. For example, driiing is lawful, so there can be no
unlawful act manslaughter by careless driiing which causes death (Andrews v DPP [1937] .
Second, the prosecuton must proie a complete base crime has been commited, and that
means both the actus reus and mens rea of the base crime (JF and NE [2015] .
Lamb [1967] 2 QB 981;
D, jokingly, pointed a reiolier at V, who joined in the game. The reiolier had two liie bullets
which weren’ t in the chamber opposite the barrel when D pulled the trigger. The chamber
rotated before fring and a bullet was dispensed, killing V. The Court of Appeal held that as the
prosecuton had been unable to proie D had the mens rea for assault (intenton or recklessness
to cause V to apprehend immediate unlawful harm) there was no complete base crime and
therefore no manslaughter. – Court held that mens rea was an essental ingredient in unlawful
act manslaughter, and the mens rea is that of the base crime.
, There is no restricton on the type of crime which can be relied on for an unlawful act
manslaughter base crime, and it does not haie to be aimed at another person (Goodfellow
(1986 – proiided it is dangerous.
The act must be dangerous
Exam tp* Make sure you know how to explain the element of dangerousness. Learn the main
cases cited in the secton and apply to the law queston.
The unlawful act (the base crime) must be dangerous. So, what is the test for dangerousness?
Established in R v Church [1996], the test for dangerous is “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 (physical harm resultng therefrom, albeit not serious harm.” Church
test – often refers back to what would a sober and reasonable person know if they knew the
same facts as D and based on this, was the actons of D dangerous?
The tests purpose is to assess whether the act is dangerous, and it is if;
1. A sober and reasonable person
2. would ineiitably recognise
3. the act might subject V
4. to the risk of some physical harm
The act must cause V’ s death
The prosecuton must proie that D’ s unlawful and dangerous act caused the iictm to die. Note
– this is not the same as saying that D must cause V’ s death. The diference arses in a case
where D does some acts to V which are unlawful and dangerous and some which are not.
For example, D throws rocks at V and shouts abuse at V. If V dies from a heart atack it would
need to be shown that it was the throwing of rocks (which was unlawful and dangerous) which
caused the death and not the abuse (which would be neither unlawful nor dangerous).
Critcism of constructie manslaughter
- Ofence is too broad
- To apply the label ‘manslaughterer’ to the conduct of a person who eniisaged no more
than a batery is disproportonate and unfair (think of principle of fair labelling)
- The present law atributes too much weight to chance (its only luck that makes the
diference between common assault and 6 months imprisonment and manslaughter
with maximum life imprisonment)
Gross negligence manslaughter
The leading case is R v Adomako (1995 . D was an anaesthetst who failed to notce when a
patent’ s tube became disconnected from a ientlator. The patent sufered cardiac arrest and
died. The House of Lords held that in cases of manslaughter by criminal negligence inioliing a
breach of duty, the ordinary principles of the law of negligence applied to ascertain whether D
had been in breach of a duty of care towards V, whether it caused the death of V, and if so,
whether it should be characterised as gross negligence and therefore a crime.
