involuntary manslaughter - unlawful act Flashcards
define involuntary manslaughter
an unlawful killing when the defendent does not have the mens rea for the murder, the defendant has no intention of committing the murder.
1. unlawful act manslaughter
2. gross negligence manslaughter
unlawful act manslaughter - key elements
An act has been committed which is:
- unlawful act
- dangerous (objectively)
- substantial cause of death
D had the mens rea for the act
unlawful act - must be a criminal offence, not a civil wrong - key cases
Franklin - civil wrong is not enough (threw a box over the pier which hit and killed them)
(R v Watson)
Must be an act - not an omission key case
Lowe (1973) - D was convicted of wilfully neglecting his son and of the manslaughter of his son, a failure to act can not support an conviction
Lamb (1967)
What caused the death? - was there an unlawful act?
L and friend were playin g with a revolver which they both knew was loaded, they thought it would not fire until there was a bullet opposite the barrel, they did not realise the next bullet would be fired. L pointed the gun and pulled the trigger killing his friend.
No unlawful act- pointing of the gun was not an assault as the friend didnt fear any violence from Lamb
Dangerous - Church (1966)
’’ such that all sober and reasonable people would inevitably recognise must subject the other person to, at least, the risk of harm resulting therefrom, albeit not serious harm’’
Some harm:
if a sober and reasonable person realises that some harm can be done by the unlawful act then this part of the test is satisfied, it does not matter if the defendant themselves realized there was some risk of harm, the law commission criticized the concept because a conviction could be based on damage to property
R v Larkin (1943)
The appellant waved a razor about intending to frighten his mistress’s lover. He claimed his mistress, who was drunk, blundered against the razor and was killed when it cut her throat.
Held:
Conviction upheld.
An unlawful act had been committed consisting of the assault against the mistress’s lover. This was a dangerous act in that it was one which a sober and reasonable person would regard as dangerous.
R v JM and SM
JM and SM had been involved in a fight with a few doormen in a nightclub. One of the doormen, who had no signs of health problems, had a renal artery aneurysm and died. JM and SM were charged with affray and manslaughter caused by an unlawful act (affray being the unlawful act). The judge held that without the prosecution proving that the victim’s death resulted from harm that any reasonable person would unquestionably recognise as affray capable of causing, a conviction for manslaughter could not be achieved. In the present case, even taking the evidence at its highest, the jury could not be satisfied of this. The prosecution appealed.
Issues
The prosecution argued that the trial judge had erred in his finding that it was a necessary element of manslaughter resulting from an unlawful act that any reasonable person should inevitably see that the victim’s death occurred due to the “sort of harm” the risk of which the unlawful act carried.
Decision / Outcome
Allowing the prosecution’s appeal, the Court of Appeal held that it was not a requirement of unlawful act manslaughter that the accused should have foreseen any specific harm or that any reasonable person would have realised the sort of harm that had in fact occurred and caused the victim’s death. What actually mattered was whether a reasonable person would recognise that an accused’s unlawful act necessarily subjected the victim to the risk of at least some harm resulting from that act. A jury, if adequately and correctly directed, could have concluded based on the evidence that a reasonable person would have foreseen that the victim had been at a risk of suffering some harm as a result of the defendants’ unlawful acts of affray.
Acts aimed at property - R v Goodfellow (1986)
The appellant had been harassed by two men and wished to move from his council accommodation. In order to get re-housed he set fire to his house making it look as if it had been petrol bombed. Unfortunately his wife, son and son’s girlfriend all died in the fire.
Held:
His conviction for manslaughter was upheld. There was no requirement that the unlawful act was directed at the victims nor that it was directed at a person. he intended to set the fire, reasonably it would result is some risk of harm
Physical harm
The risk of harm refers to physical harm, causing fear and apprehension is not enough even if the fear causes shock, its acknowledged that fear can cause shock which can cause physical harm.
R v Dawson (1985)
Three defendants attempted to rob a petrol station, they were masked and armed with a pick axe handles, the petrol station attendant managed to sound the alarm but died from a heart attack, the defendants were charged with unlawful act manslaughter, the conviction was later quashed as the court decided at it was only foreseeable if the victims special condition was known to the victim.
R v Watson (1989)
The appellant smashed a window and broke into the house of an 87 year old man, Harold Moyler. Moyler went to investigate and the appellant shouted abuse at him and ran off. The police arrived and Moyler suffered a heart attack and died 90 minutes after the initial break in.
Held:
His conviction was quashed as it could not be established that the break in was the cause of the heart attack. However, the Court of Appeal held that a sober and reasonable person would regard the act of the appellant as dangerous as they would have known of the age and frail condition of the victim. could suffer harm from the robbery.
R v Bristow, Dunn and Delay (2013)
The defendants were part of a gang for at least 6 men who agreed to burgle Vs workshop, the workshop was down a long drive so there was a risk of someone discovering the burglary and trying to prevent the men from escaping, at least 2 vehicles were used to get to the workshop, V was found dead near the workshop a few hours after the burglary. There was evidence that he had been hit by one or both of the vehicles. they were convicted of manslaughter, the COA upheld the conviction on the basis that the circumstances of the burglary meant that a reasonable and sober person would recognize some harm resulting from the burglary.
Substantial cause of death - Carey (2006)
Aimee Wellock, aged 15, and three friends went out for an early evening walk. They came across the three appellants who had been drinking. The appellants started making fun of Aimee and her friends and then became physically violent. Aimee had her head pulled back and was punched in the face. Two passing motorcyclists stopped and shouted at the appellants and they ran off. Aimee then ran off. She ran just over 100 metres but then unfortunately she collapsed and died. It transpired that she had a severely diseased heart and the run had induced a ventricular fibrillation which resulted in her death. The three appellants were convicted of affray and constructive manslaughter. They appealed against the manslaughter conviction.
Held:
The manslaughter convictions were quashed. The physical assault on Aimee was not the cause of death. The cause of death was Aimee running away in fear, however, this was not act which the hypothetical sober and reasonable person would regard as subjecting Aimee to some physical harm.
