(Task 4) M3 – Apply the law on involuntary manslaughter in given situations
Client 4 Roy
Mark, aged 35 and Roy, aged 40, collect hunting knives. They are fooling around with two knives when Mark trips
and Roy stabs him in the stomach with his knife. Roy dials 999 for an ambulance but it takes 30 minutes to arrive
because the driver is on a tea break. Mark has lost a lot of blood. At the hospital Doctor Brown, who has been on
duty for 20 hours, examines Mark and says he needs to have a blood transfusion to help save his life. Mark tells
Doctor Brown that his religion forbids blood transfusions. Doctor Brown then insists that Mark has an extra-large
dose of antibiotics instead and injects Mark without asking if he has any allergies. Mark dies an hour later of an
allergic reaction to the antibiotics.
Unlawful Act Manslaughter
1. D must do an unlawful act (which is a crime)
It was held that a common wrong was insufficient to make obligation for unlawful act manslaughter.
Another case delineating that there must be a criminal unlawful act is in ‘R v Lamb (1967)’ Lamb and his
companion were dawdling with a gun. The two of them realized that it was stacked with two shots in a five
chamber yet imagined that it would not discharge except if one of the slugs was inverse the barrel. They
realized that there was no slug in this position, however, did not understand that the chamber diverted so
a projectile from the following chamber along would be terminated. Sheep pointed the weapon at his
companion and pulled the trigger, killing him. It was held that the defendant had not done an unlawful
demonstration. The pointing of the firearm at the companion was not an attack as the companion did not
fear any viciousness from Lamb.
In relation to Roy, we know there had been an unlawful act committed, the evidence is when Mark and
Roy that were fooling around with two knives, Mark tripped and Roy stabbed him in the stomach with his
knife. Which is a crime of stabbing.
2. That act must be dangerous on an objective test
The unlawful demonstration must be risky on a objective test. In R v Church (1965) it was held that it must
be, for example, all calm and sensible individuals would definitely perceive must expose the other
individual to, at any rate, the danger of some mischief coming about consequently, but not genuine
damage'. From this, it tends to be seen that the danger needs just be of 'some mischief'. The damage need
not be not serious. On the off chance that a calm and sensible individual understands that the unlawful
demonstration may cause some injury, at that point this piece of the test for unlawful act manslaughter is
fulfilled. It does not make a difference that the defendant did not understand there was any danger of
mischief to someone else.
In relation to Roy, we know the act had been dangerous from the beginning, because a normal ‘reasonable
man’ person would have known that the act of fooling around with two knives is dangerous and there is a
huge risk of harm being done.
3. The act must cause the death
The unlawful demonstration must reason the demise. A significant point is that in the event that there is a mediating
demonstration which breaks the chain of causation, at that point the defendant cannot be obligated for
manslaughter. This point has messed up situations where the defendant has provided V with an unlawful
medication.
Page | 1
, (Task 4) M3 – Apply the law on involuntary manslaughter in given situations
In relation to Roy, we know the unlawful act committed by Roy did not cause the death of Mark because, when Mark
was stabbed. Roy called 99 for an ambulance, and he died at the hospital from the allergic reaction to the antibiotics,
that Dr Brown had given to Mark at the hospital. However, we also need to examine causation in relation to Roy
stabbing Mark with the knife into the stomach.
Causation: As the unlawful act must cause death, there still has to be considered causation elements, which include
factual and legal causation. As well as Novus Actus Interveniens.
Factual causation: the ‘but for’ asks the question would the victim have been injured or died ‘but for’ the action of
the defendant.
In relation to Roy, we know that ‘but for’ the actions of Roy not stabbing Mark in the stomach, Mark would not have
been in the position he was. This suggests that Roy is to blame for the actions.
Legal causation: Legal causation just necessitates that the defendant be more than a 'significant/minimal' reason for
the outcome. This is known as the 'de minimis rule'.
In relation to Roy, we know that Roy had done more than the ‘minimal’ damage needed for liability to be pointed at
Roy, which makes Roy more accountable for the actions of stabbing Mark.
Novus actus interveniens: A Novus Actus interveniens is a new mediating act which breaks the chain of causation.
This can be seen in the case of ‘R v CORION AUGUISTE (2004)’ in which D tossed a firecracker in an occupied,
encased bus stop, V was pushed over in the frenzy, struck her head and passed on. D's demonstration was the
immediate and significant reason for death, D indicted for unlawful act murder.
This can be seen in the case of ‘R v Jordan (1956) 40 Cr App E 152’ in which the defendant wounded the person in
question. The casualty was taken to medical clinic where he was given anti-microbials subsequent to indicating a
hypersensitive response to them. He was likewise given inordinate measures of intravenous fluids. He died of
pneumonia 8 days after admission to clinic. At the hour of death his injuries were beginning to mend. The court held
that the victim died of the clinical treatment and not the stab injury. The defendant was not liable for the death of
the victim.
In relation to Roy, we know that there was an intervening act of medical negligence, this was seen by the fact of Dr.
Brown, when Mark has an extra-large dose of antibiotics instead and was Dr. Brown injected Mark without asking if
he has any allergies. Which caused Mark to die an hour later of an allergic reaction to the antibiotics.
Due to their being a Novus Actus Interveniens, from the medical negligence cause by Dr. Brown this could mean for
Roy that the chain of causation from Roy to Mark could potentially be broken. And then this would mean that Roy
would not be liable for the death of Mark.
However we also know that in the case of ‘R v Kennedy (No 2) [2007] UKHL 38’ The house of lords (supreme court)
had established that a the voluntary conduct of adult informed victims who were of sound will be able to break the
chain of causation. And so in relation to Roy and Mark we know they were informed adults of sound mind who
voluntarily starting fooling around with the hunting knives, this could mean that Mark could have broken the chain
of causation from Roy as there was not threat to Mark from Roy, and Mark voluntarily acted in the way he did.
4. D must have the required men’s rea for the unlawful act
As it is a requirement to demonstrated that the defendant had the men’s rea for the unlawful
demonstration. It is not essential for the defendant to understand that the demonstration is unlawful or
perilous. This was clarified on account of DPP v Newbury and Jones (1976).
DPP v Newbury and Jones (1976) The defendants were two young men who pushed a clearing stone from
a scaffold onto a railroad line as a train was drawing nearer. The stone hit the train and executed the
Page | 2
Client 4 Roy
Mark, aged 35 and Roy, aged 40, collect hunting knives. They are fooling around with two knives when Mark trips
and Roy stabs him in the stomach with his knife. Roy dials 999 for an ambulance but it takes 30 minutes to arrive
because the driver is on a tea break. Mark has lost a lot of blood. At the hospital Doctor Brown, who has been on
duty for 20 hours, examines Mark and says he needs to have a blood transfusion to help save his life. Mark tells
Doctor Brown that his religion forbids blood transfusions. Doctor Brown then insists that Mark has an extra-large
dose of antibiotics instead and injects Mark without asking if he has any allergies. Mark dies an hour later of an
allergic reaction to the antibiotics.
Unlawful Act Manslaughter
1. D must do an unlawful act (which is a crime)
It was held that a common wrong was insufficient to make obligation for unlawful act manslaughter.
Another case delineating that there must be a criminal unlawful act is in ‘R v Lamb (1967)’ Lamb and his
companion were dawdling with a gun. The two of them realized that it was stacked with two shots in a five
chamber yet imagined that it would not discharge except if one of the slugs was inverse the barrel. They
realized that there was no slug in this position, however, did not understand that the chamber diverted so
a projectile from the following chamber along would be terminated. Sheep pointed the weapon at his
companion and pulled the trigger, killing him. It was held that the defendant had not done an unlawful
demonstration. The pointing of the firearm at the companion was not an attack as the companion did not
fear any viciousness from Lamb.
In relation to Roy, we know there had been an unlawful act committed, the evidence is when Mark and
Roy that were fooling around with two knives, Mark tripped and Roy stabbed him in the stomach with his
knife. Which is a crime of stabbing.
2. That act must be dangerous on an objective test
The unlawful demonstration must be risky on a objective test. In R v Church (1965) it was held that it must
be, for example, all calm and sensible individuals would definitely perceive must expose the other
individual to, at any rate, the danger of some mischief coming about consequently, but not genuine
damage'. From this, it tends to be seen that the danger needs just be of 'some mischief'. The damage need
not be not serious. On the off chance that a calm and sensible individual understands that the unlawful
demonstration may cause some injury, at that point this piece of the test for unlawful act manslaughter is
fulfilled. It does not make a difference that the defendant did not understand there was any danger of
mischief to someone else.
In relation to Roy, we know the act had been dangerous from the beginning, because a normal ‘reasonable
man’ person would have known that the act of fooling around with two knives is dangerous and there is a
huge risk of harm being done.
3. The act must cause the death
The unlawful demonstration must reason the demise. A significant point is that in the event that there is a mediating
demonstration which breaks the chain of causation, at that point the defendant cannot be obligated for
manslaughter. This point has messed up situations where the defendant has provided V with an unlawful
medication.
Page | 1
, (Task 4) M3 – Apply the law on involuntary manslaughter in given situations
In relation to Roy, we know the unlawful act committed by Roy did not cause the death of Mark because, when Mark
was stabbed. Roy called 99 for an ambulance, and he died at the hospital from the allergic reaction to the antibiotics,
that Dr Brown had given to Mark at the hospital. However, we also need to examine causation in relation to Roy
stabbing Mark with the knife into the stomach.
Causation: As the unlawful act must cause death, there still has to be considered causation elements, which include
factual and legal causation. As well as Novus Actus Interveniens.
Factual causation: the ‘but for’ asks the question would the victim have been injured or died ‘but for’ the action of
the defendant.
In relation to Roy, we know that ‘but for’ the actions of Roy not stabbing Mark in the stomach, Mark would not have
been in the position he was. This suggests that Roy is to blame for the actions.
Legal causation: Legal causation just necessitates that the defendant be more than a 'significant/minimal' reason for
the outcome. This is known as the 'de minimis rule'.
In relation to Roy, we know that Roy had done more than the ‘minimal’ damage needed for liability to be pointed at
Roy, which makes Roy more accountable for the actions of stabbing Mark.
Novus actus interveniens: A Novus Actus interveniens is a new mediating act which breaks the chain of causation.
This can be seen in the case of ‘R v CORION AUGUISTE (2004)’ in which D tossed a firecracker in an occupied,
encased bus stop, V was pushed over in the frenzy, struck her head and passed on. D's demonstration was the
immediate and significant reason for death, D indicted for unlawful act murder.
This can be seen in the case of ‘R v Jordan (1956) 40 Cr App E 152’ in which the defendant wounded the person in
question. The casualty was taken to medical clinic where he was given anti-microbials subsequent to indicating a
hypersensitive response to them. He was likewise given inordinate measures of intravenous fluids. He died of
pneumonia 8 days after admission to clinic. At the hour of death his injuries were beginning to mend. The court held
that the victim died of the clinical treatment and not the stab injury. The defendant was not liable for the death of
the victim.
In relation to Roy, we know that there was an intervening act of medical negligence, this was seen by the fact of Dr.
Brown, when Mark has an extra-large dose of antibiotics instead and was Dr. Brown injected Mark without asking if
he has any allergies. Which caused Mark to die an hour later of an allergic reaction to the antibiotics.
Due to their being a Novus Actus Interveniens, from the medical negligence cause by Dr. Brown this could mean for
Roy that the chain of causation from Roy to Mark could potentially be broken. And then this would mean that Roy
would not be liable for the death of Mark.
However we also know that in the case of ‘R v Kennedy (No 2) [2007] UKHL 38’ The house of lords (supreme court)
had established that a the voluntary conduct of adult informed victims who were of sound will be able to break the
chain of causation. And so in relation to Roy and Mark we know they were informed adults of sound mind who
voluntarily starting fooling around with the hunting knives, this could mean that Mark could have broken the chain
of causation from Roy as there was not threat to Mark from Roy, and Mark voluntarily acted in the way he did.
4. D must have the required men’s rea for the unlawful act
As it is a requirement to demonstrated that the defendant had the men’s rea for the unlawful
demonstration. It is not essential for the defendant to understand that the demonstration is unlawful or
perilous. This was clarified on account of DPP v Newbury and Jones (1976).
DPP v Newbury and Jones (1976) The defendants were two young men who pushed a clearing stone from
a scaffold onto a railroad line as a train was drawing nearer. The stone hit the train and executed the
Page | 2
