Unlawful Act Manslaughter (Involuntary Manslaughter) Year 13 Flashcards
What is the definition?
To be found guilty of unlawful act manslaughter…
The defendant must carry out an unlawful act;
The act must be dangerous, based on an objective test;
The act must cause the death of the victim; and
The defendant must have the required mens rea for the unlawful act.
What does unlawful act mean, can an omission warrant criminal liability? Give cases.
Must be a positive act.
Cannot be convicted if death caused by an omission.
R v Lowe
R v Khan and Khan
Elaborate on the positive act?
The positive act must be a criminal act.
Death caused by a civil wrong will not warrant criminal liability in unlawful act manslaughter.
Unlawful act usually connected to some kind of assault.
Can amount from any dangerous crime.
Give two more cases for positive act.
R v Franklin
R v Lamb
What test is there for dangerous act?
Courts use objective test.
R v Church:
“An act is dangerous if a reasonable and sober person would realise it creates a risk of some harm.”
‘Some harm’
Does the test for dangerous act need to be aimed directly at the victim? Give cases.
Act does not need to be directly aimed at the victim:
See R v Larkin and R v Mitchell
What time of harm do you need to show? Give cases.
Only need to show a risk of ‘some harm.’
Specific harm is not required
R v JM and SM
How does the harm need to be sufficiently? Give a cases.
Shock.
Must be sufficient to cause actual physical harm.
Emotional or mental fear/distress.
D aware of condition of the victim and risk of physical harm and shock leading to?
Shock leading to physical harm – heart attack.
R v Dawson
If defendant is aware of the condition of the victim and risk of physical harm.
R v Watson
Can an act be aimed at property as long as the reasonable person would recognise the act may cause some harm to another person? Give case.
Yes, R v Goodfellow.
Is causation normal?
Yes all apart from administration of drugs.
Intervening Acts and the administration of drugs:
Administration vs supply- give cases, say yes or no.
R v Cato- As the victim had died as a result of the effects of the injection the defendant was held liable for the victim’s death. The fact that the victim had prepared the injection did not break the chain of causation.
R v Dalby- The defendant’s conviction for manslaughter was quashed as the Court of Appeal held that, although the supplying of the drug was unlawful, it was not this act which caused the death. It was the act of the victim and the effect from the injection which caused the death, therefore breaking the chain of causation.
R v Kennedy-The House of Lords, on appeal from the Court of Appeal, pointed out that the criminal law usually recognises the existence of free will. The victim had freely and voluntarily administered the injection to himself. The defendant could only be found guilty of he was involved in the administration of the drug. The House of Lords held that the act of the victim was enough to break the chain of causation. The House of Lords also accepted that there could be situations where the victim and the defendant can be involved in the victim’s death, through joint liability.
Intervening Acts and the administration of drugs:
Administration vs supply- give cases, say yes or no.
R v Cato- As the victim had died as a result of the effects of the injection the defendant was held liable for the victim’s death. The fact that the victim had prepared the injection did not break the chain of causation.
R v Dalby- The defendant’s conviction for manslaughter was quashed as the Court of Appeal held that, although the supplying of the drug was unlawful, it was not this act which caused the death. It was the act of the victim and the effect from the injection which caused the death, therefore breaking the chain of causation.
R v Kennedy-The House of Lords, on appeal from the Court of Appeal, pointed out that the criminal law usually recognises the existence of free will. The victim had freely and voluntarily administered the injection to himself. The defendant could only be found guilty of he was involved in the administration of the drug. The House of Lords held that the act of the victim was enough to break the chain of causation. The House of Lords also accepted that there could be situations where the victim and the defendant can be involved in the victim’s death, through joint liability.
What is the mens rea? Give cases to refer to.
Can be intention or recklessness – depends on unlawful act.
E.g. Assault - intention to cause another to fear immediate unlawful personal violence or recklessness as to whether such fear is caused.
See R v Lamb
DPP v Newbury and Jones
