Involuntary Manslaughter Flashcards
Whats Involuntary manslaughter
Involuntary manslaughter is simply the unlawful killing of another human being without the intention necessary for murder.
What are two main types of involuntary manslaughter
- Unlawful act manslaughter
- Gross negligence manslaughter
Unlawful act manslaughter
There are three essential elements to this offence:
- An unlawful act
- The unlawful act must be dangerous
- And the unlawful act must have caused the death.
Unlawful act
The unlawful act must be a crime and not a tort. This was established in the case of Franklin (1883).
The unlawful act must be dangerous
The act must be one that reasonable people would see as dangerous.
The leading case here is Church (1966)
The unlawful act must have caused the death
The prosecution must show a causal link between the defendant’s unlawful and dangerous act and the death.
Mens rea
The mens rea for unlawful act manslaughter is that of the crime leading to the death.
Evaluation and criticisms of unlawful act manslaughter
- The biggest criticism is the low level of mens rea required. Someone may be convicted of manslaughter even though they had not even considered the risk of any physical harm at all – this seems harsh.
- The Church test is also very strict – not only does this defendant not have to have considered that the act was dangerous but a reasonable bystander would only have to be aware of the risk of some harm – not even serious harm. The Law Commission criticised this in 1996: “ It is inappropriate to convict a defendant for an offence of homicide where the most that can be said is that he or she ought to have realised that there was the risk of some, albeit not serious harm to another resulting from his or her commission of an unlawful act.
- The offence covers a very wide range of conduct – it could be as minor as pushing someone who then falls down the stairs and dies or conduct falling just short of murder.
Gross negligence manslaughter
This type of manslaughter involves a defendant who is not initially committing any sort of criminal act. They are doing something they are entitled or even obliged to do but they do it so badly that someone dies as a result.
Adomako
It was established in Adomako that gross negligence manslaughter requires three things:
- The defendant must owe the victim a duty of care
- The defendant must have breached the duty and the breach caused the death
- The defendant must have been grossly negligent – in the sense that a jury would decide s/he had been so negligent as to justify convicting them.
Duty of care
The criminal law recognises certain duty situations
Breach of duty
The breach of the duty of care must cause the victim’s death. The defendant has to reach the standard of care expected from a reasonably competent person doing whatever it was they were doing.
Gross negligence
prove that the defendant’s negligence was so gross that compensation between the parties was insufficient and that the defendant showed such disregard for the life and safety of others as to amount to a crime deserving punishment.
Evaluation and criticisms of gross negligence manslaughter
- The test is circular – the jury is directed to convict for gross negligence manslaughter if they think the negligence was bad enough for it to mean the defendant should be punished. The jury are being asked to convict if they think the conduct is criminal
- The test can lead to inconsistent verdicts – one jury might convict when another would acquit.
- There is an overlap between civil and criminal concepts which can cause confusion.
- If a defendant actually does foresee a risk of harm it should not matter whether a reasonable person would have foreseen it. In criminal law a defendant’s state of mind should be the key issue when deciding whether they should be blamed – unlike in civil law where a duty of care is defined in objective terms.
Reform of involuntary manslaughter – Law Commission
- three tier structure
