Unlawful Act Manslaughter

Question 1

What is Unlawful Act Manslaughter?

Answer 1

It is where the defendant has carried out a dangerous unlawful act (a crime) which caused the death.

This makes the defendant liable even though they did not realise that death or injury might occur.

They do not have the intention (either direct or oblique) to kill or to cause GBH.

Question 2

What are the 4 elements of Unlawful Act Manslaughter?

Answer 2

1) The defendant must do an unlawful act.
2) The act must be dangerous - proven by an objective test.
3) The act must cause the death.
4) The defendant must have the required mens rea for the unlawful act.

Question 3

What is the sentence for involuntary manslaughter?

Answer 3

The maximum sentence for involuntary manslaughter is life imprisonment. This is discretionary, however.

A judge may pass a sentence which reflects the seriousness of the offence, from life imprisonment to even a non-custodial sentence.

Question 4

What does the case R v Lowe (1973) establish?

Answer 4

It establishes that it must be an act, not an omission.

Question 5

What are the case facts in R v Lowe (1973)? UNLAWFUL

Answer 5

• The defendant was convicted of wilfully neglecting his baby son.
• The trail judge directed the jury that if they found the defendant guilty of wilful neglect, he was also guilty of manslaughter.
• The COA quashed this conviction because it involved a failure to act, and this could not support a conviction for unlawful act manslaughter.

Question 6

What does the case R v Lamb (1967) establish?

Answer 6

This establishes that an act/criminal offence must be committed and realised by the defendant.

Question 7

What are the case facts in R v Lamb (1967)? UNLAWFUL

Answer 7

• Lamb and his friend were playing around with a revolver, however they both knew that it was loaded with two bullets.
• They did not realise that when they pulled the trigger the cylinder moved around, therefore aligning the bullet with the barrel.
• Lamb pointed the gun at his friend and pulled the trigger, killing him.
• It was held that the defendant had not done an unlawful act. The pointing of a gun at the friend was not an assault (criminal offence) as the friend did not fear any violence from Lamb.

Question 8

What does the case Church (1966) establish?

Answer 8

The objective test - “such that 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”.

Question 9

What are the case facts in Church (1966)? DANGEROUS

Answer 9

• Mr Church and the victim were in a van for sexual purposes.
• The victim started mocking him and a fight broke out.
• He knocked the victim unconscious.
• He thought the victim was dead and threw her into the river,
• The victim drowned.

Question 10

Does an unlawful act have to be a criminal offence?

Answer 10

Yes, an unlawful act must be a criminal offence, NOT a civil wrong.
- This can include assault, burglary and arson.

Question 11

What are the case facts in Franklin (1883)? UNLAWFUL

Answer 11

Mr Franklin took a larger box from Brighton Pier and threw it in the sea.

The victim was swimming underneath the sea at the the time and was hit by the book.

Question 12

What are the case facts in R v Rogers (2003)? UNLAWFUL

Answer 12

A couple had consumed a lot of cider. One of them went out and bought two syringes of heroin. They injected one person with the heroin. The defendant held his belt around the victims arm, acting as a tourniquet, while the victim injected himself. The victim then went into cardiac arrest and died. The judge said that holding the belt was “part and parcel of the unlawful act of administering heroin”. He was found liable for manslaughter.

Question 13

What does the case R v Larkin (1943) establish?

Answer 13

The risk need only be of ‘some harm’.

Question 14

What are the case facts in R v Larkin (1943)? DANGEROUS

Answer 14

• The defendant threatened a man with an open cut-throat razor in order to frighten him.
• The mistress of the other man tried to intervene and, because she was drunk, accidentally fell onto the open blade, cut her throat and died.
  It was held that the act was dangerous - it was likely to injure someone.

Question 15

What are the case facts in R v Ball (1989)? DANGEROUS

Answer 15

• D was a landowner with hearing and speech issues.
• D’s neighbour parked his car on D’s land.
• D sold the car without asking the neighbour.
• The neighbour approached with 2 young men, demanding for the car.
• D came down the garden path with a gun.
• The two young men fled.
• D and the neighbour continued to argue.
• The neighbour tried to climb and jump over a wall, D shot and killed her.
• He claimed that he thought the gun was only loaded with blanks.
• It was held that the unlawful act was dangerous, despite his lack of awareness of the gun being loaded.

Question 16

What does the case Mitchell (1983) establish?

Answer 16

The dangerous act does not have to be aimed at the victim.

Question 17

What are the case facts in Mitchell (1983)? DANGEROUS

Answer 17

• D tried to jump a queue at the Post Office.
• An elderly man questioned and challenged his behaviour.
• D hit the old man and pushed him.
• The old man fell into several people, including an old lady.
• She fell over, broke her leg and then died.

The courts held that the defendant was still guilty of manslaughter despite the dangerous act being aimed at the old man, not the victim.

Question 18

What does the case R v JM and SM (2012) establish?

Answer 18

It is dangerous enough that the sober and reasonable man would foresee some harm, it doesn’t have to be the actual harm that was done.

Question 19

What are the case facts in R v JM and SM (2012)? DANGEROUS

Answer 19

• JM lit a cigarette inside of a nightclub and was asked to leave.
• Both JM and his brother (SM) left.
• They later returned and kicked a fire door.
• This led to a fight between the brothers and the doormen.
• During the fight, the victim, one of the doormen collapsed and died shortly afterwards of a loss of blood - his renal artery ruptured.

The court stated that it has never been a requirement that the defendant should foresee any specific harm, or that the reasonable bystander should recognise the precise harm.

The test needed to be followed of whether the reasonable and sober person would recognise that the unlawful act of the defendant would risk some harm.

Question 20

What does the case Goodfellow (1986) establish?

Answer 20

The dangerous act can be aimed at property.

Question 21

What are the case facts in Goodfellow (1986)? DANGEROUS

Answer 21

• D set fire to his council flat so that the council would have to rehouse him.
• The fire got out of control.
• His wife, son and another woman died in the fire.

He was convicted of manslaughter - all elements of Unlawful Act Manslaughter were present:
-> He committed an unlawful act - ARSON (under Criminal Damage Act 1971)
-> Arson is dangerous - risk of harm.
-> The unlawful act caused the death.

Question 22

There is uncertainty over which two cases?

Answer 22

Dawson (1985) and Watson (1989).

Question 23

What does the case Dawson (1985) establish?

Answer 23

There must be physical harm - frightening someone is not enough.

Question 24

What are the case facts in Dawson (1985)? DANGEROUS

Answer 24

The manslaughter convictions were quashed, although a petrol station attendant died from a heart attack during an armed robbery.

Question 25

What are the case facts in Watson (1989)? DANGEROUS

Answer 25

An elderly man died of a heart attack 90 mins after being physically abused in an attempted burglary of his home.

The defendant was convicted of manslaughter in this case. It was held that where a reasonable person would be aware of the victim’s fragility and the risk of physical harm to him, them the defendant would still be liable.

Question 26

What is meant by the “substantial cause of death”?

Answer 26

The unlawful act must be a substantial cause of the death.

The rules on causation are the same as murder.

If there is an intervening act which breaks the chain or causation, then the defendant cannot be liable for manslaughter.

Question 27

What are the case facts in Corion-Auguiste (2004)? SUBSTANTIAL CAUSE OF DEATH

Answer 27

D threw a firework in a busy, enclosed bus station, V was knocked over in the panic, struck her head and died.

D’s act was the direct and substantial cause of death, D was convicted of Unlawful Act Manslaughter.

Question 28

What are the case facts in Sohid (2003)? SUBSTANTIAL CAUSE OF DEATH

Answer 28

• D, as part of a group, attacked V1 and V2 at a railway station.
• Vs were forced to jump onto the tracks, V1 managed to climb back onto the platform, V2 was prevented by others and killed by a train.

COA held that the original attack was sufficient to cause the death.

Question 29

What are the case facts in R V Kennedy (2007)? SUBSTANTIAL CAUSE OF DEATH

Answer 29

• D filled a syringe with heroin, at the victims request.
• He gave it to the victim and the victim injected themselves.
• He later died and his manslaughter conviction was quashed as the HOL ruled that the victim’s voluntary act had broken the chain of causation.

The victim made a voluntary and informed decision to act in the way that he did.

Question 30

What are the case facts in Attorney General’s Reference (No 4 of 1980)? SUBSTANTIAL CAUSE OF DEATH

Answer 30

• D pushed his girlfriend during a struggle and she fell over a landing rail.
• He thought he had killed her so he dragged her upstairs by a rope tied around her neck, and then cut up her body to dispose of it.
• He argued that when he pushed herm he thought that was what killed her and as this was an accident then he wasn’t responsible.
• However, as it couldn’t be proven when she died and it could have been dragging her by the rope, then he could be convicted of manslaughter even if it couldn’t be shown which dangerous act caused the death.

Question 31

What is the Mens Rea required for Unlawful Act Manslaughter?

Answer 31

It must be proved that the defendant had the Mens Rea for the Unlawful Act only.

It is not necessary for the defendant to realise that the act is unlawful or dangerous - as seen in DPP V Newbury and Jones (1976)

Question 32

What are the case facts in DPP V Newbury and Jones (1976)? MENS REA

Answer 32

Two teenage boys pushed a paving stone from a bridge onto a railway line, as a train was approaching. The stone hit the train and killed the guard.

The defendant need only have the intention to do the unlawful act, and does not have to foresee that it might cause some harm.

Question 33

What are the case facts in R V Le Brun (1991)? MENS REA

Answer 33

• A man and his wife had a fight in which he knocked her unconscious.
• When trying to remove her body, he dropped her and caused her skull to fracture - she died.

The Mens Rea for murder was contained in the initial assault. He dropped her in an attempted to cover up his previous attack, so he was guilty of manslaughter.