Involuntary Manslaughter: Constructive

Question 1

Constructive (Unlawful Act Manslaughter).

Answer 1

This Manslaughter takes place when an unlawful killing happens but the D has no MR for Murder.

Three Elements needed for Constructive Manslaughter:

1. There must be an Unlawful Act
2. The Act must be dangerous
3. The Unlawful Dangerous Act must Cause Death

Question 2

1. There must be an Unlawful Act

Answer 2

A Civil Wrong will not Suffice:
R v Lamb 1967:
-2 boys playing with revolver, 2 bullets in barrel but boys didn’t think they would be fired.
-D fires at other boy and boy is killed.
-No Unlawful Act because D didn’t believe gun would go off so didn’t forsee consequence.

An Omission will not Suffice:
R v Lowe 1973:
-D’s child died from neglect, convicted of Manslaughter
-Appealed and Conviction quashed because Unlawful Act cannot be committed by Commission by Omission.

Unlawful Act doesn’t need to be directed at Victim:
R v Larkin 1942:
-D waved razor around to scare mistress’ lover
-Mistress drunk, fell on razor, throat cut
-Appealed, Conviction Upheld, Unlawful Act doesn’t need to be directed at the victim.

Unlawful Act need not be directed at a Person:
R v Goodfellow 1986:
-D harassed by 2 men, wanted to move
-Set fire to council house to be rehomed, wife son and son GF in house, all died, Manslaughter
-Appealed, Upheld, Unlawful Act doesn’t need to be directed at V or a person in general.

Question 3

2. The Unlawful Act must be Dangerous

Answer 3

‘Dangerous’ is given a specific meaning:

“The unlawful act must be such as all sober and reasonable people would recognise the risk of some harm resulting”.

R v Church 1965:

• V got into fight with D, V slapped D, D knocked V unconscious.
• D believed V was dead and threw her in river
• V alive and drowned in river, D convicted, appealed.
• Conviction Upheld because sober, reasonable person would have foresaw possible harm.

R v Dawson & Others 1985:

• D’s attempt to rob petrol station, wear masks and use replica guns.
• Petrol Attendant 60 and suffered from heart disease, sounds alarm, D’s leave, A has heart attack and dies.
• D’s convicted Manslaughter, Appeal, Convictions quashed because they couldn’t have known about heart disease.

Question 4

3. The Unlawful and Dangerous Act must cause Death

Answer 4

Drug Offences:

D Administer’s Noxious Thing:
R v Cato 1976:
-D purchased heroin and shared with V.
-V preps own heroin but D injects him, V dies.
-D appeals, Conviction Upheld because administering drugs is an Unlawful Act.

Possession or Supply of Drugs Doesn’t Cause Death:
R v Dalby 1982:
-D supplied V with tablets, V fell asleep after taking drugs and didn’t wake up.
-D Convicted but Quashed because supplying drugs wasn’t Unlawful Act that Caused Death, V’s act of injecting did.

V injecting Themselves:
R v Kennedy 1999:
-D prepared heroin and gave to V.
-V injected it and died.
-D convicted for assisting death.
-Appealed CoA, Conviction Upheld
-Appealed HoL, Conviction Quashed because V injecting drugs was Novus Actus Intervenus and broke chain of causation.

R v Dias 2002:
-Court recognised that there is no Unlawful Act when V injects themselves.

R v Rodgers 2003:

• D and V relatively drunk, V buys heroin, D pulls belt around arm while V injects, V dies.
• D convicted for administering noxious thing.
• Appealed, Upheld by CoA
• HoL affirmed R v Dias 2002, disapproved case when looking at R v Kennedy. (Still Guilty).

Question 5

Mens Rea

Answer 5

No requirement that D will foresee harm

DPP v Newbury 1977:

• 2 15yo’s threw paving slab off of railway bridge as train approached.
• Slab came through window and killed train guard.
• 2 Boys convicted manslaughter, appealed because they hadn’t foreseen consequence.
• Guilty, no Foresight needed.