Criminal Law - Manslaughter

Question 1

Manslaughter steps

Answer 1

• Title
• State D’s criminal behavior
• Define the potential offence
  
  • Involuntary unlawful act of manslaughter or manslaughter by gross negligence
• Work through the AR and MR for each offence
• Defences

Question 2

Unlawful Act manslaughter

Answer 2

• Definition from DPP v Newberry & Jones: Where the defendant intentionally commits an act which is unlawful, dangerous and causes the death of the victim. For example, D intentionally injecting V with heroin, and then V dying from an overdose.
• Requirements:

1. D must do an act intentionally:
   
   • Cannot be based on negligence (Andrews v DPP).
   • Must be a positive act, not an omission (R v Lowe).
   • All that is required is intention to do the act itself, not cause the deadly outcome.
2. The act must be unlawful:
   
   • It must be a crime, not just a tort (R v Franklin), e.g. an offence against the person.
   • All AR and MR elements of the unlawful act must be made out (R v Lamb). Go through all the elements of the offence in detail. You can only convict for unlawful act manslaughter if the prosecution can first prove that D committed another offence - So if answering a question on unlawful act manslaughter, you should also be familiar with offences against the person, drugs offences and sexual offences.
   • The same defences to that crime apply (R v Scarlett).
   • The crime need not be aimed at the ultimate victim (R v Larkin; R v Mitchell)
     
     • see transferred malice in the General Principles chapter.
3. The act must be dangerous:
   
   • The act will be ‘dangerous’ if the reasonable man foresees the risk of some harm. not necessarily the risk of serious harm (R v Church).
   • It requires that D foresaw that physical harm might occur (R v Dawson).
   • The jury will take into account facts that make the act dangerous that are known to the defendant (Dawson - heart attack caused by shock at an attempted robbery of a post office, but the defendants did not know that the victim had a heart condition when they threatened him); or woul_d_ be obvious to the reasonable person (R v Watson - a frail old man is obviously likely to die if a violent offence is committed against him).
4. The act must cause the death - usual causation rules apply (see General Principles chapter).

Question 3

Manslaughter by Gross Negligence

Answer 3

• Requirements:
  
  1. D must owe a duty of care (R v Adomako).
     
     • Normal rules of negligence apply (see Tort Law chapters).
     • But note that ex turpi does not apply (R v Wacker - D failed to open air vent when smuggling illegal immigrants). It does not matter that D was negligent in doing an illegal act.
     • Liability for omissions can be sufficient, as well as commissions.
  2. D must have breached that duty - normal rules of negligence apply (see Tort Law).
  3. The breach must cause V’s death - normal rules of causation apply (see General Principles chapter).
  4. That breach must amount to gross negligence:
     
     • ‘Gross’ negligence is negligence to such a degree that it amounts to a cri_me_ against the state and is deserving of punishment (Bateman; Adomako) in a situation in which there is a foreseeable risk of death, e.g:
       
       • Adomako: incompetent anaesthetist killed patient accidentally.
       • Misra & Srivastava: patient died from poor post-operative care.
       • Singh: landlord failed to fix a known carbon monoxide leak and his tenant died.
       • Litchfield: incompetent captain going near rocks failed to bring enough fuel and his ship ran aground.
     • To amount to gross negligence in a medical context, the risk of death must b_e_ serious and obvious, not merely a remote possibility or one that would only become apparent on further investigation (R v Rudling).
     • Several acts can cumulatively constitute one act of gross negligence (Litchfield). Expert evidence can assist the jury in reaching a decision, but whether the n_egligence_ amounts to ‘gross’ negligence is ultimately a question for the jury (R v Sellu).
     • D will be liable where he has personal responsibility even if others are also responsible (Singh) - although if others are wholly responsible, D will not b_e_ (Prentice & Sullivan).
     • No requirement of MR, although D’s state of mind should be taken into account in assessing the above points, including regarding what D knew about.