INVOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER
What Involuntary Manslaughter?
D satisfies the AR but NOT the MR of murder
Common law offence
3 types:
1. Unlawful act manslaughter: D commits a criminal act in dangerous circumstances, and this
causes the death of V.
2. Gross negligence manslaughter: D causes V’s death through criminal negligence.
3. Reckless manslaughter: D causes V’s death, reckless as to that result. (rarely used)
- Recklessness – Cunningham = conscious risk taking
UNLAWFUL ACT MANSLAUGHTER:
D commits a criminal act in dangerous circumstances, and this causes the death of V
Actus Reus:
1. An unlawful act/ a criminal act,
2. which was dangerous,
3. which caused V’s death
Mens Rea: whatever the necessary MR is for the unlawful act.
Actus Reus:
An The ‘base offence’ = the unlawful act – EG: burglary, robbery, assault
Unlawful Must be an offence which has a subjective MR - Andrews v DPP 1937
Act - Must be committed by an act, not an omission
commission - Lowe 1973: COA held that Lowe was not guilty of unlawful act manslaughter and
of a criminal charged with failing to provide food for his child = an offence under The Children
offence and Young Person’s Act 1933 s1(1) which is statutory duty for parents to maintain
and look after their children - Said there was no physical act but an omission – should
have been charged with GN mans
- Slingsby 1995: there was no battery, and therefore no UAM, where V consented to
acts of sexual touching, even though those acts resulted in an unexpected injury and
infection from which V died.
Must satisfy every element of the offence and have no defence
- Lambs 1967– D and V were playing with a loaded revolver and they knew it was
loaded, but neither of them understood how it worked, when D pulled trigger while
pointing it at V, both of them didn’t think that the gun would fire – V was killed and
D was found guilty of unlawful act manslaughter. His appeal was allowed and the
court took the view that ‘base offence’ was not complete because D lacked the MR
for the base offence (did not foresee the risk of causing the V to apprehend any harm)
The Defined by Edmund Davies J in Church 1965: “… the unlawful act must be such
Unlawful that all sober and reasonable people would inevitably recognise that it must subject
Act must be the other person to, at least, the risk of some harm resulting therefrom, albeit not
Dangerous serious harm.” – dangerous test
Objective test
Doesn’t have to be serious harm, as long as there is some harm
Some harm has to be foreseen
Tends to refer to physical harm, not psychological harm
Doesn’t need to be aimed at the victim
The Type of Foresight:
Dawson 1985: Dawson and 1-2 others attempted to rob a petrol station with an imitation
gun. V who was the cashier died of a heart attack as a result of (not elderly and in good
health) + he was protected by bullet proof glass – convicted of UAM because the judge
directed the jury as reasonable people to consider the risk of danger knowing the facts and
that he had a heart condition – wrong for the judge to direct the jury to consider facts that
were known to the jury but not to the D at the time of the crime (V’s heart condition)
Watson 1989: burglar who broke into an elderly man’s house. The base offence was not
aimed at the old man nevertheless, D was convicted of unlawful act manslaughter because
the old man died from a stress related heart attack - Watson did nothing to the old man – the
unlawful act which must be dangerous is satisfied if the danger to a reasonable person is
foreseeable - A reasonable person would have foreseen that it was possible for an elderly
man to have suffered a heart attack.
JF and NE 2015
What Involuntary Manslaughter?
D satisfies the AR but NOT the MR of murder
Common law offence
3 types:
1. Unlawful act manslaughter: D commits a criminal act in dangerous circumstances, and this
causes the death of V.
2. Gross negligence manslaughter: D causes V’s death through criminal negligence.
3. Reckless manslaughter: D causes V’s death, reckless as to that result. (rarely used)
- Recklessness – Cunningham = conscious risk taking
UNLAWFUL ACT MANSLAUGHTER:
D commits a criminal act in dangerous circumstances, and this causes the death of V
Actus Reus:
1. An unlawful act/ a criminal act,
2. which was dangerous,
3. which caused V’s death
Mens Rea: whatever the necessary MR is for the unlawful act.
Actus Reus:
An The ‘base offence’ = the unlawful act – EG: burglary, robbery, assault
Unlawful Must be an offence which has a subjective MR - Andrews v DPP 1937
Act - Must be committed by an act, not an omission
commission - Lowe 1973: COA held that Lowe was not guilty of unlawful act manslaughter and
of a criminal charged with failing to provide food for his child = an offence under The Children
offence and Young Person’s Act 1933 s1(1) which is statutory duty for parents to maintain
and look after their children - Said there was no physical act but an omission – should
have been charged with GN mans
- Slingsby 1995: there was no battery, and therefore no UAM, where V consented to
acts of sexual touching, even though those acts resulted in an unexpected injury and
infection from which V died.
Must satisfy every element of the offence and have no defence
- Lambs 1967– D and V were playing with a loaded revolver and they knew it was
loaded, but neither of them understood how it worked, when D pulled trigger while
pointing it at V, both of them didn’t think that the gun would fire – V was killed and
D was found guilty of unlawful act manslaughter. His appeal was allowed and the
court took the view that ‘base offence’ was not complete because D lacked the MR
for the base offence (did not foresee the risk of causing the V to apprehend any harm)
The Defined by Edmund Davies J in Church 1965: “… the unlawful act must be such
Unlawful that all sober and reasonable people would inevitably recognise that it must subject
Act must be the other person to, at least, the risk of some harm resulting therefrom, albeit not
Dangerous serious harm.” – dangerous test
Objective test
Doesn’t have to be serious harm, as long as there is some harm
Some harm has to be foreseen
Tends to refer to physical harm, not psychological harm
Doesn’t need to be aimed at the victim
The Type of Foresight:
Dawson 1985: Dawson and 1-2 others attempted to rob a petrol station with an imitation
gun. V who was the cashier died of a heart attack as a result of (not elderly and in good
health) + he was protected by bullet proof glass – convicted of UAM because the judge
directed the jury as reasonable people to consider the risk of danger knowing the facts and
that he had a heart condition – wrong for the judge to direct the jury to consider facts that
were known to the jury but not to the D at the time of the crime (V’s heart condition)
Watson 1989: burglar who broke into an elderly man’s house. The base offence was not
aimed at the old man nevertheless, D was convicted of unlawful act manslaughter because
the old man died from a stress related heart attack - Watson did nothing to the old man – the
unlawful act which must be dangerous is satisfied if the danger to a reasonable person is
foreseeable - A reasonable person would have foreseen that it was possible for an elderly
man to have suffered a heart attack.
JF and NE 2015
