Involuntary manslaughter - UAM

Question 1

What is involuntary manslaughter?

Answer 1

Involuntary manslaughter occurs when death occurs but the D does not have intention for death or serious injury

Question 2

What is unlawful act manslaughter?

Answer 2

Unlawful act manslaughter is an offence which occurs when the D committed an unlawful act (separate criminal offence) that caused the death of the victim

Question 3

What is the actus reus for UAM?

Answer 3

D must commit an unlawful act, the unlawful act is dangerous and caused the death of the victim.

Question 4

Outline the 1st element of the AR

Answer 4

Defendant committed a separate criminal offence (cannot be omission, must be an act)
Larkin - seperate criminal offence which cause death was assault
Lowe - omission cannot support a UAM conviction

Question 5

Outline the 2nd element of the AR & case

Answer 5

Dangerous Act
- Towards a person or property, for act to be dangerous, must be a risk of some harm
Objective test outlined in R v Church
Would a sober, reasonable person see the actions of D posing a risk of some harm?

Watson - burglary could be classed as a dangerous act, as soon condition of V became obvious to the Ds

Question 6

Outline the 3rd element of the AR & case

Answer 6

Must be proven that D caused the death of V
Goodfellow – Guilty of UAM as his unlawful act of arson caused the death of the V’s

Question 7

Factual causation

Answer 7

R v White - ‘but for’ the D’s act, would the V have suffered injury/died?

Question 8

Legal causation

Answer 8

Chesire - was D more than a minimal cause of death? it must be the operating and substantial cause

Question 9

Intervening acts - thin skull

Answer 9

thin skull - medical conditions, phobias, must take V as you find them

R v Blaue - Jehovah witness refused blood transfusion, did not break chain of causation

Question 10

Intervening acts - medical treatment

Answer 10

Will only break causation where the negligent act is so overwhelming to make the original wound part of history

Jordan - D stabbed V several times. Doctor gave an injection of a substance V was allergic to, resulting in death. D was not to blame as the wound was part of history.

Question 11

Intervening acts - victims own act

Answer 11

Victims own act won’t usually break chain of causation unless its unreasonable

Roberts - Reasonably foreseeable that V would jump out of a car after being touched without consent by D

Question 12

Intervening acts - Third party

Answer 12

makes the situation worse if it was sufficiently independent of D’s act & foreseeable
R v Pagett - not foreseeable that the police would be a third party to break causation

Question 13

The MR of UAM

Answer 13

The MR of UAM is intention for the unlawful act – D does not have to foresee death (must have MR for actual crime committed)

Question 14

Case for MR

Answer 14

Newbury & Jones: Killed driver of a train, guilty of UAM as they had intention to throw the slab (intention for the unlawful act) Irrelevant that they had no intention to kill

Question 15

Strengths of UAM

Answer 15

• UAM covers a wide range of situations, ensuring accountability for unintended deaths caused by criminal acts (e.g., R v Larkin)
• The test of “dangerousness” is objective (established in R v Church), ensuring consistency in application
• people engaging in prohibited acts will be held responsible if they also cause death - which acts as a deterrent

Question 16

Weaknesses of UAM

Answer 16

• Disparity in culpability: UAM does not differentiate between low levels of blame (e.g., a minor assault) and higher levels (e.g., a more reckless act leading to death). Both are treated under the same framework. This creates issues of fairness and proportionality in how defendants are labeled and punished