Unlawful Act Manslaughter

Question 1

What is involuntary manslaughter

Answer 1

an unlawful killing without direct or oblique intent to cause GBH or to kill.

Question 2

What is UAM AKA

Answer 2

Constructive manslaughter

Question 3

Does the judge have discretion in sentencing

Answer 3

Yes

Question 4

Mens Rea:

Answer 4

The defendant must have the necessary mens rea for whichever unlawful act was committed which led to the death of V.
This could be the mens rea of arson, battery, assault, burglary, criminal damage

Question 5

What are case examples for the mens rea

Answer 5

DPP V Newbury and Jones CRIMINAL DAMAGE
R V Goodfellow ARSON

Question 6

Actus Reus

Answer 6

The defendant must do an unlawful act (a crime) that must be dangerous enough on an objective test which causes death.

Question 7

“Unlawful act”

Answer 7

The case of R V Lamb shows that the action committed must be a crime. In Lamb, an assault was not committed as the friend did not fear violence. It cannot be a civil wrong (tort) as illustrated in R v Franklin, nor can it be an omission as seen in R V Lowe.

Question 8

R V Goodfellow

Answer 8

D set fire to his flat so that the council would rehouse him. It lead to the death of his wife, son and another woman. As he had committed the crime of arson, he was convicted of unlawful act manslaughter.

Question 9

R V Lamb

Answer 9

Lamb and friends were messing about with a gun, knowing it was partially loaded. They thought the gun would not fire a bullet. Lamb pointed the gun at his friend and pulled the trigger, killing him.
He was found not guilty of unlawful act manslaughter as pointing a gun at a friend, who did not fear violence, was not a crime.

Question 10

“Dangerous act”

Answer 10

Any criminal act can form the unlawful act, but it must be dangerous in the sense that it is likely to cause injury. This must be established using an objective test, established in R V Church. It does not need to be serious harm, only some harm.

Question 11

R V Church

Answer 11

“An act such as all sober and reasonable people would inevitably recognise would subject the other person to, at least, the risk of some harm resulting therefrom, albeit not serious harm.”

Question 12

“Some harm”

Answer 12

It is not necessary to foresee the particular harm caused, only that it is likely to cause some harm., as stated in R V JM and SM.

Question 13

R v JM and SM

Answer 13

JM lit a cigarette inside a nightclub and was asked to leave, and he and SM left. However, they returned and started a fight with the doormen. One of the doormen collapsed and died. His renal artery was weak, and had ruptured, which was unlikely to be spontaneous. It was held that the fight was likely to be the cause, but the judge stopped the trial as it was a different kind of harm as to what could be foreseen. However, the prosecution successfully appealed on the grounds that a sober and reasonable person would foresee some harm coming to the doormen.

Question 14

What type of harm does it have to be

Answer 14

Physical

Question 15

Assault as an unlawful act

Answer 15

Assault is “causing another to apprehend immediate personal violence.”
In Lamb, V did not apprehend immediate personal violence, so it was not an
unlawful act.
In Larkin, as the knife was being used to threaten, it was an assault and therefore it was an unlawful act.

Question 16

Drug Cases

Answer 16

R V Cato
D injected V with heroin. As V did not self-inject, D committed the act which was both unlawful and dangerous, and it caused the death of V.
R V Dalby
D supplied a drug to V, who self-injected it and died. The supply of the drugs did not cause the death, so D successfully appealed.
R V Kennedy
D prepared the injection, but V self-injected. HoL held that the self-injection was an intervening act and broke chains of causation.