Involuntary Manslaughter : UAM Flashcards
What are the ways of committing Invol manslaughter?
- Unlawful act manslaughter
- Gross Negligence manslaughter
UAM
What is unlawful act manslaughter?
This is an unlawful killing where the D does not have the intention, either direct or oblique for murder.
Also known as constructive manslaughter
UAM
What are the 4 elements to prove Unlawful act manslaughter?
- D must do an unlawful act
- That act must be dangerous on an objective test
- The act must cause death
- The D must have the required mens rea for the unlawful act
UAM
Outline element (1): Must be an unlawful act
Part (a) and (b)
(A) it must be a criminal offence
- a civil wrong is not efficient
R v Franklin (1883) : Franklin threw a heavy box into the sea, which struck a swimmer, killing him.
- Held not liable as this was not a criminal offence.
(B) There must be a positive act, and ommission cannot create liability for UAM
R v Lowe (1973) : Father neglected his child and child died from neglect, held not liable as there was no unlawful act.
Outline element (2): Act must be dangerous
The act must be dangerous based on an objective test (jury)
R v Church (1966) - Church struck a woman he had planned to have sex with, he knocked her out and threw her in a river assuming she was dead, she was unconcious and drowned.
- The conviction was upheld, court stated…
“all sober and reasonable people would recognise at least the risk of some harm, albeit serious harm”
Part 2
Outline element (2): Act must be dangerous
**The act does not have to be aimed at the victim
R v Mitchell (1983) - D had pushed an woman into another elderly woman which had died, it was held that D was liable as the act was unlawful and dangerous.
**The act does not have to be aimed at a person, it can be aimed at property
**
R v Goodfellow (1986) - Set fire to his house to be able to claim for a better home, individuals inside had died and the court held D as liable as the act was unlawful and dangerous.
Part 3
Outline element (2): Act must be dangerous
Physical Harm
Risk of harm refers to physical harm -fear is not sufficient
- R v Dawson (1985): 2 D’s had robbed V’s petrol station with fake weapons, V had pressed the panic button but later died to a unknown heart disease.
D’s could not have foreseen this as the heart attack was not predictable as they didnt know about the underlying medical condition. - The reasonable man would also not forsee the risk of some harm coming from a fake weapon
Outline element (3): Act must have caused the death
*The usual rules about causation apply
*
Drug cases
R v Cato (1976) - D injected V. D is guilty of UAM
- victim died of the effects, D injected it so this is the unlawful act.
R v Kennedy (2007) - SC said that D will not be guilty of UAM provided that the V self injects, even if the D prepared the drug.
Outline element (4): D must have MR for the Unlawful Act
Must be proved that the D had the MR neccessary for the unlawful act, however it is not neccessary for the D to realise that the act is dangerous.
R v Newbury and Jones (1976) - Two youths threw a slab of a bridge, which killed a train driver.
- Charged with manslaughter as they knew they were throwing a slab of the bridge and it would cause a danger?
