Involuntary Manslaughter
Unlawful Act Manslaughter
Involuntary manslaughter
Actus reus
Involuntary manslaughter has the same actus reus as
murder (unlawful killing) but a different mens rea. Murder
requires an intention to kill or to cause grievous bodily
harm, whereas involuntary manslaughter does not state
what the required mens rea is, just that it is something
other than the intention to kill or to cause grievous bodily
harm.
Involuntary manslaughter
Voluntary and involuntary
manslaughter
In cases of voluntary manslaughter, the defendant
commits murder but has one of the three partial defences
contained in the Homicide Act 1957. Involuntary
manslaughter is a separate crime.
Involuntary manslaughter
Types of involuntary manslaughter
There are two types of involuntary manslaughter:
• constructive manslaughter
(unlawful and dangerous act)
• gross negligence manslaughter
Involuntary manslaughter
Comparing types of involuntary
manslaughter
• Constructive manslaughter is also known as unlawful
and dangerous act manslaughter.
• Gross negligence manslaughter is based on the rules
of civil negligence, with the extra requirement of risk of
death. It was established in the case of R v Adomako
(1994).
Involuntary manslaughter: constructive
Constructive
(Unlawful act)
manslaughter
Elements
• The act must be unlawful. The case of Lamb (1967) stated
that the unlawful act must also be a criminal offence rather than
a tort (civil wrong).
•The unlawful act must be considered dangerous. The test for
dangerousness was established in R v Church (1967). It is an
objective test in that the ordinary reasonable person would see a
risk of some harm.
•Substantial cause of death
• Constructive manslaughter requires an unlawful act – an
omission is not sufficient (R v Lowe, 1973).
• The transferred malice rule applies (R v Mitchell, 1985).
Involuntary manslaughter: constructive
R v Church (1966)
In this case, the Court of Appeal established the test for
dangerousness. The unlawful act must be such as ‘all
sober and reasonable people would inevitably recognise
must subject the other person to, at least, the risk of some
harm resulting therefrom, albeit not serious harm’.
Church (1966)
• It need not be the accused who
necessarily foresaw the harm, but any
‘sober and reasonable’ person
• The risk may be only ‘some harm’, not
necessarily serious harm
• The harm need not be aimed at the victim
– Mitchell (1983)
• The harm intended must be actual
physical harm – Dawson (1985)
• Dangerous act may not be intended to
cause harm to a person – Goodfellow
(1986)
Involuntary manslaughter: constructive
Causation
• The normal rules of causation apply.
Substantial cause of death
• The act must be the substantial cause of
death
• Same principles such as chain of
causation and thin rule apply
• Corion-Auguiste (2004)
• Kennedy (2007) contrast with Cato
• Carey (2006)
• A-G ref (No.4 of 1980) (1982)
Involuntary manslaughter: constructive
Mens rea
• The defendant does not require any mens rea that shows that
he or she intended or foresaw a risk of death. Instead, the
defendant must have the mens rea required for the unlawful and
dangerous act.
• R v Lamb (1967): the defendant killed his best friend with a
revolver. He did not have the appropriate mens rea, as neither of
the men thought the gun would fire. He was not liable.
• The Goodfellow test (1986) summarises constructive
manslaughter.
• Newbury and Jones (1976)
• Le Brun (1991)
Overlap between GN & UAM
• Goodfellow
Extras
Unlawful act manslaughter
• There is no evaluation of this area so you
only need the current law and a few case
examples in support
• This type of manslaughter is also called
constructive manslaughter
• It is ‘constructed’ from three elements
An unlawful
act
Which is
dangerous
Which
causes death
Unlawful act
manslaughter
• The act must be a crime itself – Lamb
• It must be an act not an omission – Khan
• Look up the following cases. It was
manslaughter rather than murder in each.
What was the unlawful act?
• Nedrick
• Woollin
• Pagett
• This is an objective test – Church
• Would a reasonable person see a risk of
some harm resulting from the act?
• The act need not be aimed at the victim –
Mitchell
• The risk must be of ‘some harm’, not just
fear
• Compare Dawson and Watson (see
worksheet)
• Causation is an important element in
manslaughter, as it is in murder. The rules
are the same
• Look at Cato, Dalby and Kennedy (see
worksheet)
• It now seems clear that if the victim selfadministers the drug, the supplier will not
be liable for manslaughter if V dies
• There must be an active participation (as
in Cato)
• In Nedrick the unlawful act was arson (a
type of criminal damage)
• A reasonable person would see a risk of
some harm resulting from setting fire to a
residential house
• The criminal damage caused the death as
the child died in the fire
• In Woollin, the throwing of the baby was
unlawful, a type of assault
• A reasonable person would see a risk of
some harm resulting from throwing a baby
across a room
• The throwing of the baby directly caused
its death
• In Pagett, shooting at the police was the
unlawful act
• A reasonable person would see a risk of some
harm resulting from shooting at the police
• The police returning fire was foreseeable so did
not break the chain of causation between D
shooting at them and the death of the girl
• There is no special mens rea for this type
of manslaughter
• It is the mens rea for the unlawful act
• Which is either intent or subjective
recklessness, most often the latter
• There is, therefore, no need to prove
mens rea as regards the death, only the
unlawful act
• The mens rea for criminal damage is intent or
subjective recklessness as to whether property
is damaged
• In Hancock & Shankland it would be enough to
prove they recognised the risk of damaging
property and went ahead anyway
• They threw a concrete block onto a taxi so
would have recognised the risk of damage to the
road, even if not the car
• They had mens rea for the unlawful act, this act
caused the death, so it was manslaughter
• In Khan gross negligence manslaughter was
considered but for this D must owe V a duty of
care
• None was found in Khan but it was considered
again in Dias
• The CA said gross negligence manslaughter
would be possible in certain circumstances if a
duty could be established
• See gross negligence manslaughter for more.
In an exam you may need to discuss both
Which is dangerous
And which causes
death
Mens rea is that for the
unlawful act
An unlawful act
Unlawful act
manslaughter