Involuntary Manslaughter: Unlawful Act Manslaughter

Question 1

1. D may be liable for unlawful act (constructive) manslaughter…

Answer 1

D may be liable for Unlawful Act (Constructive) Manslaughter, a type of involuntary manslaughter which is an unlawful killing where the defendant does not have the mens rea for murder (malice aforethought).

Question 2

2. Firstly, there must be a…

Answer 2

Firstly, there must be a Positive and Unlawful Act by the Defendant, which means a criminal offence (Larkin, Lamb), and not an omission, (Lowe). The unlawful act need not be directed at the victim, (Mitchell), and it need not be directed at a person, (Goodfellow).

Here…

Question 3

3. Secondly, the Unlawful Act must be dangerous. this is an..

Answer 3

Secondly, the Unlawful Act must be dangerous.

This is an Objective Test where the court will consider whether the reasonable person would recognise a risk of some physical harm, not necessarily the harm which results ie death, (Dawson, Watson and Church.)

Here…

Question 4

4. Thirdly, there must be the necessary…

Answer 4

Thirdly, there must be the necessary Mens Rea for the Unlawful Act. There is no need to intend or even foresee any harm, (Newbury and Jones, Goodfellow).

Here…

Question 5

5. Fourthly, the unlawful act must cause…

Answer 5

Fourthly, the unlawful act must cause the victim’s death, so the rules on causation must be satisfied, (Corbett, Kennedy).

Question 6

6. The Test for Factual Causation…

Here…

Answer 6

The Test for Factual Causation is the “but for” test, (White, Pagett), where the harm would not have occurred but for the defendant.

Here [eg. D was the factual cause of V’s death as but for D hitting V, V would not have died].

Question 7

7. The Test for Legal Causation…

Here…

Answer 7

A. The Test for Legal Causation is whether the defendant was the operating and substantial cause of the harm, which means significant, more than minimal cause, (Smith, Pagett).

B. However, a Novus Actus Interveniens (Intervening Act) can break the chain of causation if it was not reasonably foreseeable, (Corbett, Roberts) which concerned the victim’s own act, and in Pagett which concerned a third party act.

C. Medical Negligence is an intervening act that usually will not break the chain of causation, (Cheshire), unless it is considered very serious (“palpably wrong” - Jordan).

D. Also, if V has a Hidden Weakness, then D is expected to ‘take his victim as he finds them’, under the thin skull rule, as in Blaue.

Here…