Homicide – constructive manslaughter
Involuntary manslaughter
Umbrella term for 3 manslaughter offences
Constructive manslaughter
Gross negligence
Reckless manslaughter
No traditional Actus Rea/Mens Rea divide but set of tests which include AR/MR Issues.
Constructive manslaughter
A.k.a. ‘unlawful (dangerous) act manslaughter’ – ‘U(D)AM’
o E.g if D pushes V the push is a crime in itself that is an offence against the person,
but D will also be liable for constructive manslaughter if the offence against the
person causes the death of V.
Result crime
o D’s act must take place in particular circumstances which cause both the
required result of the base offence and the ultimate result, V’s death.
Legal tests: AG’s Ref (No. 3 of 1994) [1998] AC 245.
D committed an unlawful act.
The unlawful act must also have been dangerous.
An unlawful and dangerous act which caused the death of V.
An unlawful act
Base offence: AR and MR of a criminal act (NOT a civil wrong) are required.
R v. Franklin (1883) 15 Cox CC 163;
D was walking along Brighton Pier & for some unknown reason threw
and empty wooden beer crate into the sea. The crate struck & killed V
who was swimming in the sea below.
Prosecution argued that liability for constructive manslaughter aros
from trespass to goods, a tort or civil wrong by D.
This was rejected by the court, the unlawful act had to be a crime
, since the case of Franklin there has been no liability for constructive
manslaughter on the basis of mere civil law wrongdoing.
R v. Goodfellow (1986) 83 Cr App R 23.
‘Intrinsically’ criminal?
Andrews v. DPP [1937] AC 576;
It was said than the act had to be intrinsically criminal.
This appears to mean that a strict liability offence or an offence of
negligence e.g. dangerous driving as in Andrews cannot form the basis
of constructive manslaughter.
R v. Lamb [1967] 2 QB 981;
Confirmed in Lamb when negligence is present, gross negligence
manslaughter could be used instead.
R v. Andrews [2003] Crim LR 477.
D was convicted of constructive manslaughter, where he injected V
with insulin contrary to the Medicines Act 1968. Even though this was
strict liability offence.
Note: if D has no mens rea of has a defence, then there is no base offence & thereby no
liabiliuty for constructive manslaughter.
An act, NOT an omission:
R v. Lowe [1973] QB 702.
D failed to call for a medical assistance for a dying child & the Court of Appeal
held that constructive manslaughter could not be based on an omission.
In practice, if the case does involve an omission, the prosecution may often
choose to present the case as one of gross negligence manslaughter.
An unlawful act
The unlawful act must also have been dangerous
R v. Carey [2006] Crim LR 842: there must be a risk of some physical injury.
Assessed objectively.
R v. Church [1966] 1 QB 59: a reasonable person in D’s shoes would have
appreciated that the act was dangerous.
R v. JF [2015] 2 Cr App R 5.
R v. Dawson (1985) 81 Cr App R 150.
2
Involuntary manslaughter
Umbrella term for 3 manslaughter offences
Constructive manslaughter
Gross negligence
Reckless manslaughter
No traditional Actus Rea/Mens Rea divide but set of tests which include AR/MR Issues.
Constructive manslaughter
A.k.a. ‘unlawful (dangerous) act manslaughter’ – ‘U(D)AM’
o E.g if D pushes V the push is a crime in itself that is an offence against the person,
but D will also be liable for constructive manslaughter if the offence against the
person causes the death of V.
Result crime
o D’s act must take place in particular circumstances which cause both the
required result of the base offence and the ultimate result, V’s death.
Legal tests: AG’s Ref (No. 3 of 1994) [1998] AC 245.
D committed an unlawful act.
The unlawful act must also have been dangerous.
An unlawful and dangerous act which caused the death of V.
An unlawful act
Base offence: AR and MR of a criminal act (NOT a civil wrong) are required.
R v. Franklin (1883) 15 Cox CC 163;
D was walking along Brighton Pier & for some unknown reason threw
and empty wooden beer crate into the sea. The crate struck & killed V
who was swimming in the sea below.
Prosecution argued that liability for constructive manslaughter aros
from trespass to goods, a tort or civil wrong by D.
This was rejected by the court, the unlawful act had to be a crime
, since the case of Franklin there has been no liability for constructive
manslaughter on the basis of mere civil law wrongdoing.
R v. Goodfellow (1986) 83 Cr App R 23.
‘Intrinsically’ criminal?
Andrews v. DPP [1937] AC 576;
It was said than the act had to be intrinsically criminal.
This appears to mean that a strict liability offence or an offence of
negligence e.g. dangerous driving as in Andrews cannot form the basis
of constructive manslaughter.
R v. Lamb [1967] 2 QB 981;
Confirmed in Lamb when negligence is present, gross negligence
manslaughter could be used instead.
R v. Andrews [2003] Crim LR 477.
D was convicted of constructive manslaughter, where he injected V
with insulin contrary to the Medicines Act 1968. Even though this was
strict liability offence.
Note: if D has no mens rea of has a defence, then there is no base offence & thereby no
liabiliuty for constructive manslaughter.
An act, NOT an omission:
R v. Lowe [1973] QB 702.
D failed to call for a medical assistance for a dying child & the Court of Appeal
held that constructive manslaughter could not be based on an omission.
In practice, if the case does involve an omission, the prosecution may often
choose to present the case as one of gross negligence manslaughter.
An unlawful act
The unlawful act must also have been dangerous
R v. Carey [2006] Crim LR 842: there must be a risk of some physical injury.
Assessed objectively.
R v. Church [1966] 1 QB 59: a reasonable person in D’s shoes would have
appreciated that the act was dangerous.
R v. JF [2015] 2 Cr App R 5.
R v. Dawson (1985) 81 Cr App R 150.
2
