Unlawful act manslaughter-
Involuntary manslaughter-
Unlawful act (constructive) manslaughter
GNM
Subjectively reckless manslaughter
Corporate manslaughter
Common law offences
Maximum life improsenment
Unlawful act manslaughter-
D commits an unlawful and objectively dangerous act that causes victims
death.
Can be referred to as constructive manslaughter –“base crime”
Build manslaughter one the base crime, you need a base crime for this
offence.
Actus reas-
– Unlawful act
– Objectively dangerous
– Caused victims death
Mens rea
– Intention to commit unlawful act
You don’t need to intend to cause harm to anyone and even if you cant forsee it
harming someone you can still be charged with unlawful act manslaughter.
(1) An unlawful act-
Act but NOT omission.
Lowe(1973)
Wilful neglect of a child
Base crime-
If victim hadn’t died what would the defendant be charged with, that’s the base
crime.
– AR&MR for base crime must be established and satisfied.
– Need not to be directed at the actual victim or a person.
AG’s Ref 3 of 1944 (1988)- assault (against mother)
The defendant stabbed his pregnant girlfriend in the face, abdomen and back
when she was 22-24 weeks pregnant. 17 days after the incident the woman went
into premature labour and gave birth to a live baby. The baby died 121 days
later due to the premature birth. The defendant was charged with wounding and
GBH on the mother and convicted for which he received a sentence of 4 years.
On the death of the baby he was also charged with murder and manslaughter.
The trial judge held that he could not be convicted of murder or manslaughter
since at the time of the attack the foetus was not in law classed as a human
being and thus the mens rea aimed at the mother could not be transferred to the
foetus as it would constitute a different offence.
Held:
The appellant's actions could not amount to murder for the reasons given by the
trial judge. However, his actions could amount to constructive manslaughter.
There was no requirement that the foetus be classed as a human being provided
causation was proved. The attack on the mother was an unlawful act which
, caused the death of the baby. There is no requirement under constructive
manslaughter that the unlawful act is aimed at the actual victim or that the
unlawful act was directed at a human being.
Watson (1989) – attempted burglary (against property)
The appellant smashed a window and broke into the house of an 87 year old
man, Harold Moyler. Moyler went to investigate and the appellant shouted abuse
at him and ran off. The police arrived and Moyler suffered a heart attack and
died 90 minutes after the initial break in.
Held:
His conviction was quashed as it could not be established that the break in was
the cause of the heart attack. However, the Court of Appeal held that a sober
and reasonable person would regard the act of the appellant as dangerous as
they would have known of the age and frail condition of the victim.
Goodfellow (1986)- arson (against property)
The appellant had been harassed by two men and wished to move from his
council accommodation. In order to get re-housed he set fire to his house making
it look as if it had been petrol bombed. Unfortunately his wife, son and son's
girlfriend all died in the fire.
Held: His conviction for manslaughter was upheld. There was no requirement
that the unlawful act was directed at the victims nor that it was directed at a
person.
Objectively dangerous act-
A sober and reasonable person would have foreseen the risk of some harm to
another person.
Church (1966)-
Sylvia Notts mocked the appellant's ability to satisfy her sexually and slapped his
face. A fight developed during which the appellant knocked her unconscious. He
tried to wake her for 30 mins to no avail. He believed she was dead and threw
her body into a river. Medical evidence revealed that the cause of death was
drowning and she therefore had been alive when he threw her into the river. The
trial judge made several errors in his direction to the jury and in the event they
convicted of manslaughter rather than murder. The appellant appealed on the
grounds of misdirection.
Held:
Whilst there were several errors in the judge's direction the conviction for
manslaughter was safe.
Edmund Davies LJ set the applicable test for constructive manslaughter:
"The conclusion of this Court is that an unlawful act causing the death of another
cannot, simply because it is an unlawful act, render a manslaughter verdict
inevitable. For such a verdict inexorably to follow, 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 harm resulting therefrom, albeit not
serious harm."
Objective test – D need not foresee the danger
Involuntary manslaughter-
Unlawful act (constructive) manslaughter
GNM
Subjectively reckless manslaughter
Corporate manslaughter
Common law offences
Maximum life improsenment
Unlawful act manslaughter-
D commits an unlawful and objectively dangerous act that causes victims
death.
Can be referred to as constructive manslaughter –“base crime”
Build manslaughter one the base crime, you need a base crime for this
offence.
Actus reas-
– Unlawful act
– Objectively dangerous
– Caused victims death
Mens rea
– Intention to commit unlawful act
You don’t need to intend to cause harm to anyone and even if you cant forsee it
harming someone you can still be charged with unlawful act manslaughter.
(1) An unlawful act-
Act but NOT omission.
Lowe(1973)
Wilful neglect of a child
Base crime-
If victim hadn’t died what would the defendant be charged with, that’s the base
crime.
– AR&MR for base crime must be established and satisfied.
– Need not to be directed at the actual victim or a person.
AG’s Ref 3 of 1944 (1988)- assault (against mother)
The defendant stabbed his pregnant girlfriend in the face, abdomen and back
when she was 22-24 weeks pregnant. 17 days after the incident the woman went
into premature labour and gave birth to a live baby. The baby died 121 days
later due to the premature birth. The defendant was charged with wounding and
GBH on the mother and convicted for which he received a sentence of 4 years.
On the death of the baby he was also charged with murder and manslaughter.
The trial judge held that he could not be convicted of murder or manslaughter
since at the time of the attack the foetus was not in law classed as a human
being and thus the mens rea aimed at the mother could not be transferred to the
foetus as it would constitute a different offence.
Held:
The appellant's actions could not amount to murder for the reasons given by the
trial judge. However, his actions could amount to constructive manslaughter.
There was no requirement that the foetus be classed as a human being provided
causation was proved. The attack on the mother was an unlawful act which
, caused the death of the baby. There is no requirement under constructive
manslaughter that the unlawful act is aimed at the actual victim or that the
unlawful act was directed at a human being.
Watson (1989) – attempted burglary (against property)
The appellant smashed a window and broke into the house of an 87 year old
man, Harold Moyler. Moyler went to investigate and the appellant shouted abuse
at him and ran off. The police arrived and Moyler suffered a heart attack and
died 90 minutes after the initial break in.
Held:
His conviction was quashed as it could not be established that the break in was
the cause of the heart attack. However, the Court of Appeal held that a sober
and reasonable person would regard the act of the appellant as dangerous as
they would have known of the age and frail condition of the victim.
Goodfellow (1986)- arson (against property)
The appellant had been harassed by two men and wished to move from his
council accommodation. In order to get re-housed he set fire to his house making
it look as if it had been petrol bombed. Unfortunately his wife, son and son's
girlfriend all died in the fire.
Held: His conviction for manslaughter was upheld. There was no requirement
that the unlawful act was directed at the victims nor that it was directed at a
person.
Objectively dangerous act-
A sober and reasonable person would have foreseen the risk of some harm to
another person.
Church (1966)-
Sylvia Notts mocked the appellant's ability to satisfy her sexually and slapped his
face. A fight developed during which the appellant knocked her unconscious. He
tried to wake her for 30 mins to no avail. He believed she was dead and threw
her body into a river. Medical evidence revealed that the cause of death was
drowning and she therefore had been alive when he threw her into the river. The
trial judge made several errors in his direction to the jury and in the event they
convicted of manslaughter rather than murder. The appellant appealed on the
grounds of misdirection.
Held:
Whilst there were several errors in the judge's direction the conviction for
manslaughter was safe.
Edmund Davies LJ set the applicable test for constructive manslaughter:
"The conclusion of this Court is that an unlawful act causing the death of another
cannot, simply because it is an unlawful act, render a manslaughter verdict
inevitable. For such a verdict inexorably to follow, 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 harm resulting therefrom, albeit not
serious harm."
Objective test – D need not foresee the danger
