Unlawful Act Manslaughter

Question 1

What are the elements needed to find liability for unlawful act manslaughter?

Answer 1

1. The defendant must have committed an unlawful act
2. The unlawful act must be dangerous (exposed victim to risk of some bodily harm)
3. The unlawful and dangerous act caused the victims death

Defined in Larkin 1944, there must be an intentional act, which is unlawful, objectively dangerous and which causes death

Question 2

The unlawful act has three limitations placed in the rule-what are they?

Answer 2

1. The unlawful act must constitute a crime -it cannot be a tort or civil wrong. (Franklin 1883)
2. The unlawful act must be criminal for other reasons than it being negligently performed (Andrews v DPP 1937)
3. The unlawful manslaughter is based on a positive act not an omission. (R v Lowe 1973)(failure to call Dr for 9 week baby and died-manslaughter conviction quashed)

Question 3

Which case highlights that the unlawfulness of the act is only satisfied if the AR and MR of the base offence is complete?

Answer 3

R v Lamb 1967
Defendant points gun at friend for joke-both believing it is not loaded, but shot and killed friend. Could not be guilty of manslaughter as the AR and MR of assault could not be established.

Question 4

The unlawful act must be dangerous-which case highlighted the test for dangerous?

Answer 4

R v Church 1966

Victim knocked unconscious and defendant pushed her in water where she drowned as believed she was dead.

The unlawful act must be one that “all sober and reasonable people would recognise must subject the other person to the risk of some harm”.

Question 5

Does the defendant need to recognise that the unlawful act was dangerous?

Answer 5

R v Newbury and Jones 1977
Defendant threw a slab from bridge onto train, killing guard. Defendant appealed on the basis that they did not appreciate that their conduct carried a risk of harm

Principle: as long as the defendant intentionally does an unlawful and dangerous act there is no further requirement that they must foresee a risk of harm to others from the act.

Question 6

What needs to be established to determine that the defendants act caused the victims death?

Answer 6

1. Factual causation “but for “test. (R v White 1910)
2. Legal causation: policy driven as some factual causes are to remote to be held liable.

R v Pagett 1983
Defendant used girlfriend as human shield and was killed after being shot by police officer.
Principle: although he did not hurt her, he created the chain of events causing her death. Therefore, the defendants act does not need to be sole/main cause of death. But provided a cause that “contributed significantly to the result”(Robert Goff LJ)

Exception
Jordan -where medical treatment was so palpably wrong that it would break the chain of causation from defendants original liability of victims death.

Question 7

What categories fall within the break of causation as an intervening act?

Answer 7

1. Acts of the victim. The victim can break chain if their reaction to the defendants act is extreme and unforeseeable. ( R V Roberts 1972)
2. Acts of third parties- if an ambulance driver accidentally drives into the river-causing victim to die, was the intuition injury insignificant to the intervening act?
3. Naturally occurring events