Unlawful act manslaughter

Question 1

D may be liable for

Answer 1

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

There are

Answer 2

4 elements that must be satisfied:

Question 3

Firstly, there must be a

Answer 3

positive and unlawful act by the defendant, which means a criminal offence, set out in Larkin and in Lamb, and not an omission, as in Lowe. The unlawful act need not be directed at the victim, as in Mitchell, and it need not be directed at a person, as in Goodfellow.

Question 4

Here [eg. D’s positive and unlawful criminal act is his assault on V when

Answer 4

he puts V in fear of immediate unlawful force by threatening V with violence IF RELEVANT the act was not actually directed at V, or indeed anyone in particular].

Question 5

secondly, the unlawful act must be

Answer 5

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 in death, set out in Dawson, in Watson and in Church.

Question 6

Here [eg. D’s unlawful act is dangerous

Answer 6

as the reasonable person would recognise a risk of some physical harm when D punches V].

Question 7

Thirdly, there must be the

Answer 7

necessary mens rea for the unlawful act. there is no need to intend or even foresee any harm, set out in Newbury and jones, and in Goodfellow.

Question 8

Here [eg. D had the mens rea for assault on V because

Answer 8

he intended to cause him fear although he did not intend or foresee any harm.]

Question 9

Fourthly, the unlawful act must

Answer 9

cause the victim’s death, so the rules on causation must be satisfied, set out in Corbett and in Kennedy.

Question 10

The test for factual causation is the

Answer 10

but for test, set out in White and in Pagett, where the harm would not have occurred but for the defendant.

Question 11

Here [eg. D was the factual cause of V’s death

Answer 11

as but for D hitting V, V would have not died]

Question 12

The test for legal causation is

Answer 12

whether the defendant was the operating and substantial cause of harm. which means significant, more than minimal cause, as in Smith and in Pagett.

Question 13

however, a novus actus interveniens (intervening act) can break the chain of causation if it

Answer 13

was not reasonably foreseeable, as in Corbett and in Roberts which concerned the victim’s own act, and in Pagett which concerned a third party act.

Question 14

Medical negligence is an

Answer 14

intervening act that usually will not break the chain of causation, as in Cheshire, unless it was considered very serious (“palpably wrong”) as in Jordan.

Question 15

Also, if V has a hidden weakness, then D is expect to

Answer 15

“take his victim as he finds them”, under the thin skull rule, as in Blaue.

Question 16

Here [eg. D hitting V was probably the

Answer 16

operating and substantial cause of death as it was the significant, more than minimal cause of death.

Question 17

Although there was an intervening act when V ran into the road and was run over,

Answer 17

this was a reasonably foreseeable victim’s act and so the chain of causation is not broken.

Question 18

There was medical negligence when the doctor gave the wrong medicine,

Answer 18

but this does not seem serious enough to break the chain of causation.

Question 19

V had a hidden weakness of a heart condition,

Answer 19

but D must take his victim as he finds them under the thin skull rule.

Question 20

Overall,

Answer 20

legal causation is satisfied.

Question 21

To conclude,

Answer 21

D will be liable for involuntary manslaughter as all the elements of unlawful act (constructive) manslaughter are satisfied.