Chapter 6 - Involuntary Manslaughter

Question 1

What are the three types of homicide?

Answer 1

The three types of homicide are murder, voluntary manslaughter, and involuntary manslaughter.

Question 2

What is the difference between murder and voluntary manslaughter?

Answer 2

Both murder and voluntary manslaughter involve the unlawful killing of a human being with the intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm. The key difference is that voluntary manslaughter involves the presence of a partial defense, such as diminished responsibility or loss of control.

Question 3

What distinguishes involuntary manslaughter from murder and voluntary manslaughter?

Answer 3

Unlike murder and voluntary manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter does not require proof of intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm.

Question 4

What are the other terms used to describe unlawful act manslaughter?

Answer 4

Unlawful act manslaughter is also known as unlawful and dangerous act manslaughter or constructive manslaughter. The term “constructive manslaughter” refers to the fact that the defendant’s liability for the death is constructed from a lesser crime they committed.

Question 5

What are the three elements that must be proven for a conviction of unlawful act manslaughter?

Answer 5

To be convicted of unlawful act manslaughter, the prosecution must prove that the defendant:
1. Committed an unlawful act (a crime with a mens rea of intention or recklessness)
2. The unlawful act was dangerous
3. The unlawful act caused the victim’s death

Example: Dawood breaks into Harold’s house. Harold, an 85-year-old with chronic asthma, is terrified and suffers a fatal asthma attack. The unlawful act is burglary, and Dawood is likely to be convicted of unlawful act manslaughter.

Question 6

What type of unlawful act is required for unlawful act manslaughter?

Answer 6

The unlawful act must be a crime with a mens rea of intention or recklessness. Crimes of negligence, such as careless driving, are not sufficient.

Example: Solly pushes his son, Benjy, causing him to fall and hit his head, resulting in death. The unlawful act here is physical assault, which can be committed intentionally or recklessly, making it applicable to involuntary manslaughter.

Question 7

Can any offense requiring intention or recklessness be considered an unlawful act for unlawful act manslaughter?

Answer 7

Yes. While assault is a common unlawful act, other offenses, such as criminal damage, burglary, or theft, can also be considered unlawful acts if they meet the criteria of intention or recklessness.

Example: In DPP v. Newbury and Jones, the defendants pushed a paving stone from a bridge, causing it to crash through a train window and kill the guard. They were convicted of manslaughter based on criminal damage.

Question 8

Can an omission to act be considered an unlawful act in unlawful act manslaughter?

Answer 8

No. The defendant must have committed a positive act for this element of the offense to be established. A failure to act, even if it results in death, cannot lead to a charge of unlawful act manslaughter.

Example: In R v. Lowe, the defendant’s conviction for unlawful act manslaughter was quashed because the child’s death resulted from neglect, which is an omission to act, rather than an unlawful act.

Question 9

Must the defendant intend to cause harm for the unlawful act to be established in unlawful act manslaughter?

Answer 9

No. The only requirement is that the unlawful act itself is a criminal offense in law. The defendant need not intend or foresee the risk of harming anyone.

Example: In R v. Lamb, the defendant pointed a revolver at his friend as a joke and pulled the trigger, killing him. The defendant was found not guilty of manslaughter because there was no unlawful act of assault, as he did not believe they were committing a crime.

Question 10

In addition to being unlawful, what other characteristic must the act have for unlawful act manslaughter?

Answer 10

The unlawful act must also be dangerous.

Example: In R v. Ball, the defendant shot and killed his neighbor with a shotgun loaded with live and blank cartridges, claiming he thought he was firing a blank. He was found guilty of unlawful act manslaughter based on simple assault.

Question 11

Who decides whether the unlawful act in a potential unlawful act manslaughter case was dangerous?

Answer 11

The jury decides whether the unlawful act was dangerous based on the evidence presented.

Question 12

What is the test for dangerousness in unlawful act manslaughter?

Answer 12

The test for dangerousness is objective. It asks whether “all sober and reasonable people would inevitably recognize [that the act] must subject the other person to, at least the risk of some harm… albeit not serious harm.”

Question 13

Is the defendant’s awareness of the risk of harm relevant in the dangerousness test for unlawful act manslaughter?

Answer 13

No. The test is objective, meaning that the defendant’s subjective belief or awareness of the risk is irrelevant. The question is whether a reasonable person would have recognized the risk of harm, regardless of the defendant’s own perception.

Question 14

Must the risk of harm in unlawful act manslaughter be directed toward a person?

Answer 14

Yes, the risk of harm must be to a person, not to property.

Question 15

What knowledge is considered when determining whether a reasonable person would have recognized a risk of harm in unlawful act manslaughter?

Answer 15

The reasonable person is deemed to have the same knowledge that the defendant had or should have had at the time of the offense. This includes knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the act and any specific vulnerabilities of the victim that the defendant was aware of.

Question 16

Does the reasonable person in the dangerousness test for unlawful act manslaughter need to foresee the exact type of harm that occurs?

Answer 16

No, the reasonable person need not foresee the precise form or sort of harm that results from the act. It is enough that they would recognize a risk of some harm occurring.

Example: In R v. Dawson, the defendants attempted to rob a petrol station. The attendant, who had a heart condition unknown to the defendants, suffered a fatal heart attack. The conviction was quashed as a reasonable person present at the robbery would not have been aware of the heart condition.

Question 17

Can knowledge relevant to the dangerousness test for unlawful act manslaughter be gained during the commission of the crime?

Answer 17

Yes, the reasonable person’s knowledge may be apparent in advance or gleaned during the crime. This means that even if the risk of harm becomes apparent only as the events unfold, it can still be considered in assessing dangerousness.

Question 18

What is the mens rea for unlawful act manslaughter?

Answer 18

There is no single definition of mens rea for unlawful act manslaughter. The required mens rea is simply that which matches the unlawful act committed.

Example: If the unlawful act is arson, the mens rea would be the intention to destroy or damage property belonging to another.

Question 19

What is the final element of the actus reus of unlawful act manslaughter?

Answer 19

The final element is that the unlawful act must cause the victim’s death. This means that the usual rules of causation apply, and it must be proven that the defendant was both the factual and legal cause of death.

Question 20

What happens if the prosecution cannot prove that the unlawful act caused the victim’s death?

Answer 20

If causation cannot be established, the defendant will not be liable for either murder or manslaughter. However, they may still be guilty of another criminal offense, such as assault.

Question 21

When can someone be charged with gross negligence manslaughter?

Answer 21

Gross negligence manslaughter applies when a person causes death through grossly negligent conduct but without the intention or recklessness required for murder or unlawful act manslaughter. It often applies to professionals like doctors or those failing to fulfill a duty of care.

Example: A doctor failing to provide necessary treatment due to extreme fatigue, resulting in a patient’s death, could be charged with gross negligence manslaughter.

Question 22

What are the four elements required to convict someone of gross negligence manslaughter?

Answer 22

The four elements are:
1. The defendant owed the victim a duty of care
2. The defendant breached that duty
3. The breach caused the victim’s death
4. The defendant’s conduct was grossly negligent

Question 23

What is the difference between negligence in civil law and gross negligence in criminal law?

Answer 23

While negligence in civil law focuses on falling below a reasonable standard of care, gross negligence in criminal law requires a much higher threshold. The defendant’s conduct must be so exceptionally bad that it warrants criminal punishment, not just civil liability.

Question 24

What are some examples of established duty of care relationships?

Answer 24

Established duty of care relationships exist between:
* Parent and child
* Employers and employees
* Drivers and other road users

Question 25

Can a duty of care be established in situations beyond the well-established relationships?

Answer 25

Yes. New situations may arise that require a consideration of both law and fact to determine whether a duty of care exists. In such cases, the judge will decide if there is enough evidence to present the issue to the jury.

Example: In R v. Willoughby, the Court of Appeal stated that the existence of a duty of care is typically a matter for the jury to decide after the judge determines if there’s sufficient evidence to support it.

Question 26

Can someone be liable for gross negligence manslaughter due to an omission to act?

Answer 26

Yes. If the defendant had a duty to act and their failure to do so constituted a breach of that duty, they can be liable for gross negligence manslaughter.

Example: In R v. Evans, the defendant supplied heroin to her half-sister, who overdosed. The defendant realized this but failed to seek medical assistance, resulting in the victim’s death. The defendant was convicted of gross negligence manslaughter due to her omission to act.

Question 27

In assessing breach of duty in gross negligence manslaughter, what standard is the defendant held to?

Answer 27

The defendant is held to the standard of a reasonable person. If their conduct falls below what a reasonable person would do in the same situation, they have breached their duty of care.

Question 28

How does having specialized knowledge or expertise impact the standard of care in gross negligence manslaughter?

Answer 28

If the defendant has specialized knowledge or expertise, like a doctor, they will be held to a higher standard of care, that of a reasonable person with the same knowledge and expertise. This means they are expected to act in a way consistent with their professional training and experience.

Question 29

How is causation established in gross negligence manslaughter?

Answer 29

The prosecution must prove that the defendant’s breach of duty caused the victim’s death, applying the usual rules of causation. This usually involves demonstrating that the defendant’s actions or omissions were a significant contributing factor to the death.

Question 30

What does it mean for a breach of duty to be ‘grossly negligent’?

Answer 30

It means the conduct was so bad as to be considered criminal. This requires a higher level of negligence than simple carelessness. It must be a serious departure from the expected standard of care, showing a disregard for the victim’s safety.

Question 31

What is the key legal principle established in R v. Adomako regarding gross negligence manslaughter?

Answer 31

R v. Adomako established that gross negligence manslaughter occurs when a defendant, who owes a duty of care, breaches that duty in a way that involves a risk of death and is so bad that it should be considered a crime.

Example: An obvious risk of death existed in the case of a defendant smuggling immigrants in a lorry with a sealed air vent. The immigrants died of suffocation.

Question 32

Is it necessary to prove that the defendant was aware their conduct was grossly negligent for a gross negligence manslaughter conviction?

Answer 32

No. The focus is on the objective assessment of their actions. The jury must decide if the conduct fell so far below the reasonable standard that it constitutes a crime, regardless of the defendant’s subjective awareness or intentions.

Question 33

According to R v. Adomako, what factor is crucial in determining if a defendant’s conduct was bad enough to be considered criminal?

Answer 33

The risk of death involved in the defendant’s actions is a key factor in determining criminal liability. The greater the risk of death associated with the defendant’s breach of duty, the more likely their conduct will be deemed grossly negligent.

Question 34

How does the case of R v. Singh elaborate on the concept of ‘risk of death’ in gross negligence manslaughter?

Answer 34

R v. Singh clarified that for a gross negligence manslaughter conviction, the defendant’s actions must have created a serious and obvious risk of death, not just a risk of injury.

Question 35

How did R v. Rose further clarify the assessment of ‘reasonable foreseeability’ in gross negligence manslaughter cases?

Answer 35

R v. Rose established that when assessing the reasonable foreseeability of a serious and obvious risk of death, it is not appropriate to consider what the defendant would have known but for their breach of duty.

Question 36

What is the main criticism of the test for manslaughter by gross negligence?

Answer 36

The test relies heavily on the jury’s subjective judgment of whether the defendant’s conduct was “so bad” as to be criminal. This can lead to inconsistency in verdicts as different juries might reach different conclusions based on similar facts.

Question 37

What is the key difference between causing death by dangerous driving and unlawful act manslaughter?

Answer 37

Causing death by dangerous driving does not fall under unlawful act manslaughter because dangerous driving is a crime of negligence, not intention or recklessness.

Question 38

What are the key differences between causing death by dangerous driving (s1 Road Traffic Act 1988) and gross negligence manslaughter?

Answer 38

• Scope: s1 applies only to deaths caused by driving, while gross negligence manslaughter has a wider scope.
• Perceived Seriousness: s1 is often seen as less serious than gross negligence manslaughter.
• Sentencing: Maximum sentence for s1 is 14 years, while gross negligence manslaughter can result in a life sentence.
• Proof of Risk of Death: s1 does not require establishing a risk of death, while gross negligence manslaughter does.

Question 39

What is the purpose of the offense of causing death by careless or inconsiderate driving (s2B Road Traffic Act 1988)?

Answer 39

This offense addresses situations where a driver’s carelessness, falling below the standard of a competent driver, results in a death. It was introduced to address concerns about the perceived leniency of sentences for careless driving when a fatality occurs.

Question 40

What are the main proposals for reforming homicide law in England and Wales?

Answer 40

The Law Commission proposed:
* A three-tier structure (first-degree murder, second-degree murder, manslaughter)
* Clarifying mens rea requirements for different homicide offenses
* Public consultation on a separate offense or partial defense for “mercy killing”

Question 41

What are the key distinctions between unlawful act manslaughter and gross negligence manslaughter?

Answer 41

• Unlawful act manslaughter requires proof of a criminal state of mind (intention or recklessness), while gross negligence manslaughter relies on negligence.
• Unlawful act manslaughter requires a positive act, whereas gross negligence manslaughter can be committed by an act or an omission.

Question 42

How does the concept of ‘dangerousness’ apply in a potential unlawful act manslaughter case involving an act intended to frighten?

Answer 42

If an act intended to frighten someone creates a risk of some harm that a reasonable person would recognize, it can be considered a dangerous act for the purposes of unlawful act manslaughter. The context and circumstances of the act are crucial in determining whether it meets the dangerousness threshold.

Question 43

Can an assault charge based solely on apprehension of unlawful force be sufficient for unlawful act manslaughter?

Answer 43

Yes, even an assault where the victim only apprehends the use of unlawful force, without actual physical contact, can meet the unlawful act requirement for unlawful act manslaughter, provided it was intentional and created a risk of harm.