INVOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER
-Unlike voluntary manslaughter involuntary manslaughter may be charged
-An acquittal for murder may be substituted for an IM conviction so it is not true to say
that IM is always charged
-Examples:
-(30)R v Woollin (1999) – Direction of substantial risk rather than virtual certainty
-P is able to prove the AR of murder but cannot prove the MR hence the MR of IM
cannot be malice aforethought
-There is no set definition it is just known to be less than malice aforethought
-There are 3 forms of involuntary manslaughter:
-Reckless Manslaughter
-Gross Negligence Manslaughter
-Unlawful Act Manslaughter
Comment:
-The three forms of IM have the same mens rea (i.e. that of murder) but have varying
levels of MR
RECKLESS MANSLAUGHTER:
-For RM the mens rea is:
-D foresaw that death or serious harm was a highly probable consequence of his
conduct (Lidar 1999)
-Note that it is assessed subjectively
-Note that highly probable is a lower level of foresight than the virtual certainty level for
oblique intent murder
-Examples:
-(73)R v Lidar (1999) –Drove off with V hanging from door of car
-(30)R v Woollin (1999) – Direction of substantial risk rather than virtual certainty
GROSS NEGLIGENCE MANSLAUGHTER:
-The MR for GNM is that D was grossly negligent
-This is assessed objectively against a reasonable man with the same skills/expertise
Comment:
-Negligence is a civil term from the civil law of tort
-For GNM (criminal law) the negligence must be gross due to the consequences of
conviction i.e. harsher consequences require more proof of fault
-Conviction goes beyond requiring mere compensation (Bateman 1925)
-When assessing whether negligence was gross courts should consider: seriousness of
the breach & how far D’s conduct was from the proper standard (Adomaku 1995)
-Examples:
-(74)R v Adomaku(1995)- Failed to notice disconnected oxygen tube
-For D to be convicted P must prove:
-D owed a duty of care
-D was in breach of that duty of care
-D’s breach involved a risk of death
-D’s breach caused death
-D’s breach was criminal/grossly negligent
1
D Owed a Duty of Care:
-This is the same as the general principles of civil negligence with the court considering
the relationship between D and V
-Where the relationship is already recognised as giving rise to a duty of care (an
established relationship) the judge will direct the jury such
-Where the relationship is a new relationship then it is for the jury to decide as to
whether or not D owed V a duty of care by asking:
-Was it reasonably foreseeable that D’s actions would cause V’s death?
-Examples:
-(75)R v Litchfield (1997) – Captain and crew new relationship
-(76)R Wacker (2003) – D carrying illegal immigrants owed duty of care
-(77)R v Willoughby (2005) – Where D and V in illegal enterprise owe duty of care
D in Breach of Duty of Care:
-D’s breach may be either an act or an omission (e.g. failing to reconnect oxygen tube)
-It is for the jury to decide whether D’s conduct fell bellow the standard of a reasonable
man i.e. it is an objective test
-The jury must take into account D’s particular skills and expertise (e.g. in Adomaku the
RM was an anaesthetist)
-D does not have to be aware of the risk of the breach (Mark 2004)
-Examples:
-(78)R v Mark (2004) – D did not know cleaning fluids used would explode
D’s Breach Involves a Risk of Death:
-This is an objective test assessed against a reasonable prudent person
-Would a reasonably prudent person have foreseen that the breach involved a risk of
death (not just injury)?
-It must be foresight of a very high risk (Brown 2005)
D’s Breach Caused Death:
-See Actus Reus: Causation (causation in fact, causation in law, breaking the chain etc.)
-Examples:
-(1)R v Pittwood (1902) – Breached contract by failing to close crossing gate
D’s Breach Was Criminal/Grossly Negligent:
-When assessing whether negligence was gross courts should consider: seriousness of
the breach & how far D’s conduct was from the proper standard (Adomaku 1995)
-This is assessed objectively by comparing D’s conduct to that expected of a reasonable
man
-As a result there is no need for P to prove fault by D merely that his standards fell
bellow a RMs
-It is for the jury to decide whether D’s negligence was gross enough to justify
punishment for manslaughter
Comment:
-There are several problems with GNM:
-Gross negligence is defined as a breach of a duty of care which was grossly
negligent (just goes round in a circle, what is GN?)
-It is wholly objective hence requiring no proof of fault on the part of D
2
UNLAWFUL ACT MANSLUAGHTER:
-This is also known as constructive manslaughter as the liability for manslaughter is
constructed from liability for a lesser offence
-The AR is the AR of the lesser offence plus causing death
-The MR is committing the AR deliberately and the MR of lesser offence
-Examples:
-(79)R v Newbury (1977) – D committed AR of criminal damage causing death
-Hence P must prove:
-D deliberately did an act
-D’s act was criminally unlawful
-D’s act was dangerous
-D’s act caused death
D Did a Deliberate Act:
-P must prove that D acted deliberately/intentionally. There is no requirement to prove D
intended to kill/cause harm (Newbury 1977)
Comment:
-Note that D must have committed a deliberate act, not an omission
-AR by omission is not sufficient for UAM (Lowe 1973)
-Remember it may still be reckless manslaughter (Stone & Dobinson 1977) or gross
negligent manslaughter (Adomaku 1995)
D’s Act Was Criminally Unlawful:
-D does not have to be aware that their act was criminally unlawful
-The offences must be ones based upon intention or recklessness, negligence is not
sufficient for UAM (Andrews 1937)
-P must prove both AR and MR inorder to convict
-Examples:
-(80)R v Lamb (1967) – D lacked MR of battery as did not realise gun was loaded
-UAM may be construct upon an offence of strict liability (Andrews 2002)
-Examples:
-(81)R v Andrews (2002) – D unlawfully administered V with insulin
Comment:
-Note that negligence is not sufficient MR for UAM to be constructed on top of (Andrews
1937) however strict liability offences can be used (Andrews 2002)
-Surely this is contradictory as SL offences require no mens rea i.e. even less than
negligence
D’s Criminal Act Was Dangerous
-D’s act must be dangerous in the eyes of a reasonable sober person i.e. it is a wholly
objective assessment
-Examples:
-(82)R v Ball (1989) – Mixture of lives and blanks so not virtual certainty
-D’s act must subject V to risk of physical harm and must cause the harm which causes
V’s death
D’s Unlawful Act Must Cause Death:
-See Actus Reus: Causation (causation in fact, causation in law, breaking the chain etc.)
3
4