5 - Involuntary Manslaughter Flashcards
What is involuntary manslaughter?
Where a defendant kills the victim, but does so without intending either death or GBH. Although they may have committed the actus reus of murder, they have not satisfied the mens rea.
The accused may only have intended minor harm, or indeed no harm at all but, despite this and perhaps due to pure misfortune, they cause the victim’s death.
There are two types:
- Unlawful act manslaughter
- Gross negligence manslaughter
What is unlawful act manslaughter?
Unlawful act manslaughter is also referred to as unlawful and dangerous act manslaughter or constructive manslaughter.
Liability for the death is ‘constructed’ from the fact that the defendant has committed a lesser crime.
The offence requires:
- An unlawful act that is objectively dangerous, meaning it poses a risk of harm to another person.
- The act must cause the victim’s death, establishing a direct link between the unlawful act and the fatality.
Example: In DPP v Newbury and Jones [1977], the defendants were convicted of manslaughter after pushing a paving stone onto a train, killing the guard. This case clarified that the unlawful act does not have to be an assault; it may also include burglary, robbery, or theft.
What are the elements of the actus reus and mens rea of unlawful act manslaughter?
Actus reus:
The defendant must:
- Do an unlawful act, which is a criminal act recognised by law.
- The act must be dangerous, posing an objective risk of harm.
- The act must cause the victim’s death, establishing causation.
Mens rea:
- The mens rea is linked to the unlawful act; typically, it involves intent or recklessness, but crimes of negligence do not qualify for this type of manslaughter.
What constitutes an unlawful act in unlawful act manslaughter and who does the burden of proof fall on?
- The prosecution must prove that the defendant committed an unlawful act, which is a crime with a mens rea of intent or recklessness.
- Crimes of negligence, such as careless driving, do not qualify as an unlawful act in this context.
- A failure to act cannot lead to a charge of unlawful act manslaughter; there must be a positive action that results in harm. I.e., cannot be caused by an omission.
Example: Vera’s neglect led to her son’s death, but she cannot be convicted of unlawful act manslaughter because she did not commit a positive unlawful act.
How does the ‘dangerous act’ element function in unlawful act manslaughter?
- The act must be objectively dangerous, as determined by the jury based on the reasonable person’s perspective.
- In R v Church [1966], the court held that the unlawful act must be one that reasonable people would recognise as posing a risk of harm to others.
- ‘… 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.’
- This is an objective test; the prosecution does not need to prove that the defendant realised the act was dangerous at the time it was committed.
- The reasonable person is deemed to have the same knowledge as the defendant at the time of the offence, which influences the assessment of dangerousness.
What are the criteria for determining dangerousness in unlawful act manslaughter?
- The act must carry the risk of some harm to someone, but not necessarily serious harm.
- The defendant need not foresee the exact form of harm that might result from the act.
- The test is objective: would reasonable people consider the act dangerous based on its circumstances?
- The reasonable person is deemed to have the knowledge the defendant had or should have had at the time of the offence, impacting the assessment of the act’s dangerousness.
What must be proven regarding causation in unlawful act manslaughter?
- The unlawful act must cause the victim’s death, establishing a direct link between the act and the fatality.
- Usual rules of causation apply; the defendant must be both the factual and legal cause of the death.
Example: In drug offences, if the victim voluntarily injects themselves, the chain of causation may be broken, absolving the defendant of liability for unlawful act manslaughter since the victim’s own actions contributed to their demise.
How does mens rea apply in unlawful act manslaughter?
- The mens rea for unlawful act manslaughter varies depending on the specific unlawful act committed.
- It typically aligns with the mens rea of an assault but does not need to mirror it exactly.
Example: In the case of Keni, who set fire to a house, he had the intent required for the unlawful act of arson, which in turn led to his liability for his son’s death as a direct consequence of his actions.
Provide a summary of the key components of unlawful act manslaughter?
Unlawful act manslaughter is also known as unlawful dangerous act manslaughter.
Key elements include:
- An unlawful act that carries the risk of harm to another person. Cannot be carried out by an omission.
- The act must be objectively dangerous, as recognised by reasonable people.
- The unlawful act must cause the victim’s death, creating a direct causal link.
- The usual rules of causation apply, ensuring that the defendant is both the factual and legal cause of the death.
- Must have the mens rea of an unlawful act.
What is Gross Negligence Manslaughter?
As with unlawful act manslaughter, the accused does not intend either to kill the victim or to cause them serious bodily harm.
Key differences between unlawful act manslaughter and gross negligence manslaughter include:
Unlawful Act Manslaughter:
- Only applies where D has a criminal state of mind (intention or recklessness).
- Cannot be committed negligently.
- Requires an act.
Gross Negligence Manslaughter:
- Only requires negligence.
- May be committed by an act or by omission.
Gross negligence manslaughter is unusual in that it ‘mops up’ defendants who would not normally expect to be caught by the criminal justice system, including professionals doing their job such as medical practitioners.
What are the elements required for a conviction of Gross Negligence Manslaughter?
To convict a defendant of gross negligence manslaughter, the court must be satisfied that:
- The defendant owed the victim a duty of care.
- The defendant breached that duty.
- The breach caused the death of the victim.
- The defendant’s conduct was grossly negligent.
This definition looks very similar to the civil wrong of tort, but there is a key difference – the breach must be gross.
What constitutes a Duty of Care in Gross Negligence Manslaughter?
That a duty of care is owed by the defendant to the victim is a prerequisite of this offence.
In most cases, determining whether there is a duty to act is quite straightforward; for example, it is well established that a duty of care exists between the following:
- Parent and child
- Doctor and patient
- Employer and employee
- Driver and other road users
- Occupier and visitor.
However, some situations are rather less clear cut, and in these rare cases, the court must decide.
How do the courts approach the determination of a Duty of Care where it is not established between parties?
A defendant will only be liable for gross negligence manslaughter if a duty exists.
Determining this issue is a matter of both law and fact:
- Where there is a clear duty, as between a medical practitioner and a patient, or a statutory duty, the judge can direct the jury that a duty of care exists.
- Where the existence of a duty is not clear, the judge must decide whether there is any evidence that is capable of establishing one. If not, the offence falls at the first hurdle.
- If there is such evidence, the jury will determine whether a duty of care is present in the scenario before it.
How can Gross Negligence Manslaughter be committed?
Unlike unlawful act manslaughter, gross negligence manslaughter can be committed by omission, as well as where the defendant does a positive act or behaves negligently.
In practice, it is more commonly applied to situations where the defendant is under a duty to act but fails to do so.
The general rule is that the criminal law does not impose a duty on a person to act.
However, there are a number of exceptions to this rule, including:
- Where there is a special relationship.
- A voluntary assumption of responsibility.
- A contractual or statutory duty.
- A duty to avert a danger created by the defendant.
What is required to prove a Breach of Duty?
The prosecution must also prove that the defendant breached their duty of care towards the victim, either by the performance of a positive act or by a failure to act.
- A defendant will breach their duty of care to the victim where their conduct falls below that expected of a reasonable person.
- There is no need to establish that the defendant was aware their conduct may fall below this standard – just that it did.
- Where the defendant has special knowledge or expertise, such as a doctor, they will be expected to meet the standard of care expected of a reasonable person with that knowledge or expertise.
