Unlawful act manslaughter

Question 1

Actus Reus

Answer 1

1. D must commit unlawful act
2. The act must be dangerous
3. Act must cause V’s death

Question 2

Mens rea

Answer 2

D must have mens rea for unlawful act

Question 3

1. The act must be unlawful

R v Stone and Dobinson

Answer 3

A failure (omission) will be insufficient for UAM. There must be an ACT.

Question 4

Franklin

Answer 4

Unlawful act must be criminal.

Question 5

Lamb

Answer 5

D must have all elements of unlawful act - AR and MR

Act must be unlawful - any lawful act carried out badly will NOT fall within UAM.

Question 6

2. Mens rea for the Unlawful act

Answer 6

D only needs MR for unlawful act (do not need to have MR for killing/death)

Question 7

Newbury v Jones

Answer 7

It is not necessary to prove that D foresaw any harm from his act. D only needs MR of the unlawful act.

Question 8

Mitchell

Answer 8

(Used for transferred malice)

Malice (MR) can be transferred from one V to another.

Question 9

3. The unlawful act must cause the death

Answer 9

Not only must there be an unlawful act, this act must crucially cause V’s death. Both types of causation must therefore be proved.

Factual - But for test (Pagett; White)

Legal - Operative and substantial test (Smith)

Intervening act can break chain of causation:

1. Victim’s own actions (Williams)
2. Actions of a third party (Jordan)
3. Act of God (Tsunami)

Thin skull rule - won’t break chain of causation

Question 10

Dear

Answer 10

Self neglect by V does not break the chain of causation.

Question 11

Drug cases

Answer 11

Difficulty in the area of drug supply - when D provides V with drugs, who self administers, which results in two questions:

1. Whether D has done the unlawful act
2. Whether D caused V’s death or whether seld injecting broke chain of causation.

Question 12

Cato

Answer 12

Link between V and D intact as D administers drug to V

Question 13

Kennedy

Answer 13

V breaks link from D by injecting drug on to himself

Question 14

4. Unlawful act must be dangerous

Church

Answer 14

An act is dangerous if a sober and reasonable person would realise that it carries a risk of (some) physical harm to another person.

Reasonable, sober person must realise act was Dangerous (Test of dangerousness)

Question 15

Watson

Answer 15

Reasonable person would have realised risk of physical harm to V, as V was old and visibly frail - Act is dangerous

Question 16

R v JM and SM

Answer 16

An unlawful act must be dangerous - Reasonable and sober person doesn’t have to foresee the risk of specific harm, only that V would suffer some physical harm

Question 17

Goodfellow

Answer 17

Unlawful act can be aimed at property (as long as the sober, reasonable person would realise it carried the risk of some physical harm to a person.

Question 18

Farnon and Ellis

Answer 18

D’s lack of knowledge wouldn’t affect his liability as it is the reasonable sober person and not a reasonable person of D’s age that needs to see the risk of physical harm to another person by setting a building on fire.