1B.2.3 Involuntary manslaughter Flashcards
Involuntary manslaughter
An unlawful killing where the defendant does not have the intention, either direct or oblique, to kill or to cause GBH.
What distinguishes involuntary manslaughter from murder?
The lack of intention
What are two types of involuntary manslaughter?
- Unlawful Act Manslaughter
- Gross Negligence Manslaughter
Unlawful act manslaughter
Where the defendant has done a dangerous unlawful act (a crime) which caused the death.
This makes the defendant liable even though they did not realise that death or serious injury might occur.
Elements of unlawful act manslaughter
- The defendant must do an unlawful act (the actus reus).
- The act must be dangerous on an objective test.
- The act must cause the death.
- The defendant must have the required mens rea for the unlawful act.
[Unlawful act manslaughter]
Unlawful act
The death must be caused by an unlawful act, which must be a criminal offence. A civil wrong (tort) is not enough. There must be a criminal unlawful act, as in R v Lamb (1967).
There must be an act. An omission cannot create liability for unlawful act manslaughter. This was shown by the case of R v Lowe (1973).
In many cases the unlawful act will be some kind of non-fatal offence, but any criminal offence can form the unlawful act if it involves a dangerous act likely to cause injury.
Examples of the offences which have led to a finding of unlawful act manslaughter include:
* Arson – Goodfellow
* Criminal damage – Newbury and Jones
* Burglary – Watson
R v Lamb (1967)
Lamb and his friend were fooling around with a revolver. They both knew that it was loaded with two bullets in a five-chamber cylinder but thought that it would not fire unless one of the bullets was opposite the barrel. They knew that there were no bullets in this position, but did not realise that the cylinder turned so that a bullet from the next chamber along would be fired. Lamb pointed the gun at his friend and pulled the trigger, killing him.
- Held: The defendant had not done an unlawful act. The pointing on the gun at the friend was not an assault as the friend did not fear any violence from Lamb.
R v Lowe (1973)
The defendant was convicted of wilfully neglecting his baby son and of his manslaughter. The trial judge had directed the jury that if they found the defendant guilty of wilful neglect he was also guilty of manslaughter.
The Court of Appeal quashed the conviction for manslaughter because a finding of wilful neglect involved a failure to act, and this could not support a conviction for unlawful act manslaughter.
[Unlawful act manslaughter]
Dangerous act
The unlawful act must be dangerous on an objective test - as held in the case of Church.
The harm need not be serious. If a sober and reasonable person realises that the unlawful act might cause some injury, then this part of the test for unlawful act manslaughter is satisfied. It does not matter that the defendant did not realise there was any risk of harm to another person. | The case of R v Larkin (1943) illustrates both these requirements.
R v Larkin (1943)
The defendant threatened another man with an open cut-throat razor, in order to frighten him. The mistress of the other man tried to intervene and, because she was drunk, accidentally fell onto the open blade which cut her throat and killed her.
On appeal, his conviction for manslaughter was upheld because:
- The act of threatening the other man with the razor was a technical assault.
- It was also an act which was dangerous because it was likely to injure someone.
The act need not be aimed at the victim. This was the situation in Larkin, where the assault was against the man but the woman died.
[Unlawful act manslaughter]
Some harm
It is enough that the sober and reasonable person would foresee some harm, not the actual harm that was done. This was stated in R v JM and SM (2012).
R v JM and SM (2012)
JM lit a cigarette inside a nightclub and was asked to leave. After some pushing, both JM and his brother SM left. Later they both returned and kicked a fire door. This led to a fight between the brothers and doormen, collapsed and died shortly afterwards of loss of blood: his renal artery had ruptured.
- The court stated that it has never been a requirement that the defendant should foresee any specific harm, or that the reasonable bystander should recognise the precise form which occurred. The test is whether reasonable and sober people would recognise that the unlawful activities of the defendant subjected the decreased to the risk of some physical harm.
[Unlawful act manslaughter]
Act against property
The unlawful act need not be aimed at a person; it can be aimed at property, as seen in the case of R v Goodfellow (1986).
R v Goodfellow (1986)
The defendant set fire to his council flat so that the council would have to rehouse him. The fire got out of control and his wife, son and another woman died in the fire. He was convicted of manslaughter and appealed. His conviction was upheld because all the elements of unlawful act manslaughter were present.
[Unlawful act manslaughter]
Physical harm
The ‘risk of harm’ refers to physical harm. Something which causes fear and apprehension is not sufficient.
Burglary can become a ‘dangerous’ act if the victim’s condition was apparent to the reasonable person, or the circumstances of the act make it dangerous. This happened in R v Bristow, Dunn and Delay (2013)
- Cases: Dawson, Watson and Bristow, Dunn and Delay.
R v Dawson (1985)
Convictions for manslaughter were quashed although a petrol station attendant died from a heart attack during an attempted robbery.
R v Watson (1989)
An elderly man died of a heart attack 90 minutes after being physically abused in an attempted burglary of his home.
Held: the defendant would be liable where a reasonable person would be aware of the victim’s frailty and the risk of physical harm to him.
Bristow, Dunn and Delay (2013)
The owner of a car repair business in remote farm buildings tried to stop the defendants and was run over and killed by them as they were escaping after a burglary.
[Unlawful act manslaughter]
Causing the death
The unlawful act must cause the death. The rules on causation are the same as for murder – there must be legal and factual causation.
An important point is that if there is an intervening act which breaks the chain of causation, then the defendant cannot be liable for manslaughter.
[Unlawful act manslaughter]
Cases where ‘death results from the unlawful supply of drugs’
If a person supplies drugs or materials to administer a drug to someone else, who then administers the drug to himself and dies, this is not an unlawful act. This is the case even where a person performs preparatory acts, such as preparing a syringe for injection.
This is because the criminal law assumes a person’s free will. Subject to certain exceptions, informed adults of sound mind are treated as able to make their own decisions on how to act. This can be seen in R v Kennedy (2007).
- It is possible that in situations where the defendant has supplied the victim with drugs, the defendant could be liable for gross negligence manslaughter instead.
Kennedy (2007)
The defendant and victim were living together in a hostel. The victim asked the defendant for ‘a bit to make him sleep’. The defendant prepared a dose of heroin for the victim, then passed him the syringe so that he could inject himself. The victim did so, and died several hours later as a result of choking on his own vomit while under the influence of the drug.
As the victim was a fully informed and consenting adult, who had freely and voluntarily self-administered the drug without any pressure from the defendant, this was an intervening act and the defendant was not liable for manslaughter.
Mens rea for unlawful dangerous act
It must be proved that the defendant had the mens rea for the unlawful act.
It is not necessary for the defendant to realise that the act is unlawful or dangerous, as in the case of DPP v Newbury and Jones.
DPP v Newbury and Jones (1976)
Two teenage boys pushed a paving stone from a bridge onto a railway line as a train was approaching. The stone hit the train and killed the guard. They were convicted of manslaughter.
The House of Lords confirmed it was not necessary to prove that the defendant foresaw any harm from his act. So, a defendant can be convicted provided that:
- the unlawful act was dangerous
- the defendant had the necessary mens rea for that act.
Gross Negligence Manslaughter
Where the defendant owes the victim a duty of care but breaches that duty in a way that is so criminal it is negligent, causing the death of the victim.
- It can be committed by an act or omission, neither of which has to be unlawful.
- This offence might be considered in many circumstances, but typically involves death following medical treatment or care, death in the workplace or death in custody.
What is the leading case on GNM?
Adomako (1994)
Adomako (1994)
The defendant was an anaesthetist. During an operation, one of the tubes supplying oxygen to the patient became disconnected. The defendant failed to notice this until some minutes later when the patient suffered a heart attack caused by the lack of oxygen. The patient suffered brain damage and died six months later as a result.
Doctors giving evidence in the trial said that a competent anaesthetist would have noticed the disconnection of the tube within 15 seconds and that the defendant’s failure to react was ‘abysmal’. The trial judge directed the jury on gross negligence manslaughter and they convicted. The conviction was upheld by the House of Lords.
Broughton (2020)
At a music festival, the defendant supplied the drugs which his girlfriend had a bad reaction to. He remained with her as her condition deteriorated to the point where her life was obviously in danger. He was charged with being grossly negligent in failing to obtain medical assistance, which was a substantial cause of her death.
His conviction was quashed as the evidence could not prove causation - that she would have lived if he had called for help. This is the criminal standard of proof.
Test for GNM
The test of GNM was stated in R v Broughton (2020):
i) The defendant owed an existing duty of care to the victim.
ii) The defendant negligently breached that duty of care.
iii) At the time of the breach there was a serious and obvious risk of death.
iv) It was reasonably foreseeable that the breach gave rise to a serious and obvious risk of death.
v) The breach of duty caused or made a significant contribution to the death of the victim.
vi) In the view of the jury, the circumstances of the breach amounted to gross negligence and required a criminal sanction.
Singh (1999)
The defendant was the landlord of property in which a faulty gas fire caused the deaths of tenants. It was recognised that there was a duty on the defendant to manage and maintain property properly.
Litchfield (1997)
The defendant was the owner and master of a sailing ship. He sailed, knowing that the engines might fail because of contamination to the fuel. The ship was blown onto rocks and three crew members died.
It was held that the defendant owed a duty to the crew.
Duty of care with GNM
Duty of care can be determined using the traditional rules in Civil Negligence.
Or if they fulfilled any of the duties for omissions. (Incl. contractual duty, relationship, statutory duty, etc…)
[GNM]
The defendant has created a dangerous situation
A duty of care can exist where the defendant has created a state of affairs, which he or she knows or ought reasonably to know, has become life-threatening This was seen in the case of Evans (2009).
Breach of duty causing death
Once a duty of care has been shown to exist, it must be proved that the defendant was in breach of that duty of care and that this breach caused the death of the victim.
Whether there is a breach of duty is a factual matter for the jury to decide. Did the defendant negligently do or fail to do something? Causation is important, as it must be proved that the breach of duty caused the death. The general rules on causation apply.
- Prove factual and legal causation, alongside the chain of causation.
- Not too remote.
Sentence for GNM
Life sentence or any other sentence which the judge deems to be appropriate.
[GNM]
Meaning of ‘gross’ negligence
The negligence has to be ‘gross’, this means it is so serious as to be considered criminal.
The jury must conclude that a reasonable person would have foreseen a serious and obvious risk of death - not merely a risk of injury.
Cases:
- Meaning of serious - Rudling
- Meaning of obvious - Rose.
