Homicide - Involuntary manslaughter - unlawful and dangerous act manslaughter Flashcards
1
Q
Requirements to establish liability for unlawful and dangerous act manslaughter
A
- AG’s Reference (No.3 1994)
o Must prove:
a) D committed an unlawful act
b) The unlawful act was dangerous
c) That the act caused death
1
Q
Types of involuntary manslaughter
A
- Involuntary Manslaughter
- D commits actus reus of murder (causes death of a human being) BUT does not have required mens rea
1. Unlawful and Dangerous Act Manslaughter
2. Gross Negligence Manslaughter
3. Subjective Reckless Manslaughter
2
Q
Unlawful and dangerous act manslaughter - D committed an unlawful act (10)
A
- Franklin
o A tort or civil wrong is not sufficient – must be a crime - Andrews v DPP
o Act must be criminal for some reason other than it has been negligently performed - Jennings
o Unlawful act being relied upon must be explicitly identified and established - R v Lamb
o 2 friends with a gun. D checked gun and saw there is no bullets. Points gun at friend in gest and pulls trigger – this was revolver and so a bullet was fired and killed his friend. Lamb did not intend this nor was he reckless – he had looked for bullet and ruled out relevant risk – could not establish mens rea for murder so manslaughter ruled out - DPP v Newbury & Jones
o D need not know his act is unlawful - Lowe
o If omit to do something with the result being death to a person, a charge of manslaughter SHOULD NOT be the inevitable consequence, even if omission was deliberate
o Ashworth and Taylor both believe that a deliberate omission SHOULD be a manslaughter charge - Dalby
o D had medicine on prescription and gave it to friend. Friend took drugs and died. Looking at manslaughter charge. The unlawful act of supplying the drugs was not directed at the victim and act of supply itself would not have caused harm. For manslaughter we have to show the actus directed at the victim and is likely to show some harm
o Act must be directed at the victim – this was disapplied in subsequent cases - Mitchell
o D pushes victim who falls against 89 year old woman who later dies. The assault was not directed at old woman so argued not guilty of manslaughter. In Dalby there was not sufficient link between supply of drugs and the death. But in Mitchell it is different as lady was injured and died as a direct result of D’s actions. Unlawful act does not have to be directed at the actual victim - Goodfellow
o D sets fire to council flat hoping the council will move him and his family as they were being harassed. However in the fire 3 members of his family died. This was not intended and did not see this risk.
o The unlawful act does not have to be directed at victim, just have to show that unlawful act is cause of death - AG’s Reference (No.3 of 1994)
o D attacks pregnant girlfriend and causes death of foetus – the unlawful act caused death of child it would become so would be manslaughter.
o It does not matter that the act was not directed at the victim
3
Q
Unlawful and dangerous act manslaughter - the unlawful act must be dangerous (13)
A
- MEANING OF DANGEROUS
- R v Church
o Dangerous means 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.
o Low threshold of dangerous - DPP v Newbury
o D need not foresee dangerousness of their activity - R v JM; R v SM
o 2 men kicked out of nightclub for smoking. Altercation between men and bouncers. 1 of bouncers died shortly after but it is not clear if he was hit in the altercation. He died from ruptured aneurysm. Court said acts did not support manslaughter charge as risk of burst aneurysm was not reasonably foreseeable. Appealed saying the law court had applied an incorrect meaning of dangerousness.
o The D needs to foresee the particular type of harm – added unnecessary qualification to Church test - R v JF & NE
o Where death resulted from an unlawful act which was dangerous, the test for establishing dangerousness was objective;
o D’s (14 and 15) go into unused house, set fire to mattress and leave. Ends up killing homeless person sleeping there. Charged with arson recklessly endangering life and manslaughter. Acquitted of arson recklessly endangering life as did not foresee the risk of homeless person sleeping there. Must establish meaning of dangerous – objectively assessed.
o It is for Parliament to change the law in how it is assessed – it does not matter if 14 and 15 year old reasonably foresee harm - WHAT IS DANGER?
- R v Church
o Physical harm - R v Dawson
o if fright leads to shock it would be enough to say sufficient harm had been caused - R v Carey
o Group of kids bullied and harassed by group of boys. Some shoving occurred only lasting for 1 minute when another group breaks it up. Victim runs away from scene. She stops and feels faint – later dies. The cause of death was heart attack. Used affray offence.
o Court decided if had sufficient dangerousness – could establish this if the shock had led to the physical harm – in this case it could not be established so there was not sufficient harm - R v JM; R v SM
o The question whether the reasonable sober person would inevitably recognise the risk of harm going beyond concern and fear and distress to physical harm in the form of shock would have to be resolved as a question of fact rather than law. - PECULIARITY OF VICTIM
- Dawson
o objective test ‘can only be undertaken upon the basis of the knowledge gained by the sober and reasonable man as though he were present at the scene of and watched the unlawful act being performed.’
o D approaching petrol station staffed by 50 year old man. D’s armed with pickaxe handle and gun. The attendant suffered from heart attack from shock – suffered from heart disease which would not have been known by the defendants. It would not have been obvious to sober and reasonable man that the man had this peculiarity heart condition which would make the actions dangerous. They would appreciate that the attendant would experience fear but would not appreciate that they would endure physical harm - Watson
o Burglary of frail, vulnerable man. Old man suffers heart attack shortly after D’s leave the house.
o A sober and reasonable bystander would have realised the victim/s vulnerability when in the house so would have known there was a risk of fear leading to physical harm - Carey
o The afraid lacks the quality of dangerous as not obvious to sober and reasonable bystander that the victim would have experienced physical harm from the fear that she felt - NOT EVERY UNLAWFUL ACT IS DANGEROUS – LOOK AT CIRCUMSTANCES
- Bristow
o Went to farm and tried to steal quadbikes. Owner came out to try to stop them and was mowed down by car. This is different from Dawson and Watson as the very way this burglary was organised and carried out meant that it was dangerous - R v Long, Bowers & Cole
o Theft was dangerous in this case. D went around stealing and when chased by police, drove with high speed and dangerousness. Policeman confronted D’s, they drove away and he was dragged for over a mile and died. The way they carried out the theft was dangerous so could be charged with unlawful/dangerous act manslaughter
4
Q
Unlawful and dangerous act manslaughter - the unlawful and dangerous act must cause death (3)
A
- Need to establish both factual and legal causation
- R v Kennedy
o NAI could break causal chain in manslaughter - Carey
o Unlawful act which was accepted as dangerous was the one that caused death
o there had been some kind of conduct when pushing – but it was not the push that led to heart attack, it was her running away so difficult proving this - R v Johnston
o It must be proved that it was the unlawful and dangerous act that was the substantial cause of death
o Group of young kids who spit and throw stones of man. Man has history of heart disease but would not have been known to kids at time. Suffered fractured cheekbone and also went on to have heart attack and died. D argued cannot prove that it was throwing of stones (unlawful act of assault) that caused the death, it could have been spitting and insulting him (not unlawful acts) that caused the death. It would be difficult for them to give rise to a foreseeable risk of injury on a visibly healthy man. Where there are a number of acts that may have caused death, it must be proved that it was the unlawful/dangerous act that was the substantial cause of death
5
Q
Critical commentary of unlawful and dangerous act manslaughter (4)
A
- Offence is too broad – D does not have to know act is unlawful or dangerous and does not have to foresee death or serious harm
- Leigh
o The scope of unlawful act manslaughter should be limited to crimes of violence – actual bodily harm would be an appropriate degree of harm provided that it is intended - Taylor
o Omissions should be included within unlawful and dangerous act manslaughter – if the omission us not just deliberate but is also inadvertent (the potential consequence of serious harm is known to D) then it should be involuntary manslaughter - Possible reform: Law Commission Report 306 Murder, Manslaughter and Infanticide
o Manslaughter would encompass
1. Where death was caused by a criminal act intended to cause injury or
2. Where the offender was aware that the criminal act involved serious risk of causing injury - Breaches principle of correspondence – mens rea has to relate to prescribed harm
- Horder
o Correspondence principle has very limited application
o It ought to be labelled as proximity principle as it would be wrong to require an exact match between actus reus and mens rea rather than simply a close approximation between the two
o Unlawful and Dangerous act manslaughter current law is correct – correspondence between actus reus and mens rea does not have to be exact (although mens rea for murder being intention to kill is not present, there is a close approximation as death results) - Principle of fair labelling – applying manslaughter label to someone who envisaged no more than a battery is disproportionate
