R v Slingsby [1995] Crim LR 570

KEY POINTS

• The manslaughter allegation based on the precise circumstances surrounding the injuries and the deceased party's consent does not amount to harm. 

• In a consented act, if the consequences amount to harm to either of the parties, what shall be the liability of the harm?  

• It is important to distinguish between unintentional, accidental harm that arises from consensual activities and criminal acts involving deliberate harm.

FACTS

• The defendant was charged with involuntary manslaughter. The case revolved around the death of an individual as a direct result of injuries inflicted by the defendant's ring during sexual intercourse.

• The prosecution, representing the Crown, alleged that the defendant was criminally liable for manslaughter in connection with this incident. The prosecution's primary argument was that if the sexual activity was consensual, it should not be categorized as assault or any other criminal offence.

• The Crown Court, in its judgment, concluded that the sexual activity in question did not involve any deliberate intent to cause harm or injury. Importantly, the court found that neither party involved in the sexual activity had anticipated or considered the possibility of injury resulting from the defendant's ring.

• The injuries sustained by the deceased were determined to be purely accidental, resulting from the consensual sexual activity itself. The court emphasized that it would be unjust to label an activity as criminal solely because an injury occurred during it, particularly when there was no intent to cause harm.

• As a result of these findings and in line with the legal principle, the charge of manslaughter against the defendant could not be upheld. The defendant was consequently not found guilty of manslaughter in this case.

JUDGEMENT

• The defendant faced involuntary manslaughter charges due to a death resulting from injuries during consensual sexual activity involving the defendant's ring. The prosecution argued that this consensual activity should not be deemed criminal since there was no intent to harm.

• After careful review, this court found no deliberate intent to cause harm and emphasized that the injuries were accidental.

• The principle that injuries during consensual activities should not be criminal prevailed. As a result, the charge of involuntary manslaughter could not be sustained, and the defendant was acquitted.

COMMENTARY

• The prosecution contended that consensual activity should not be considered a criminal offence without intent to harm.

• The court emphasized upon the crucial distinction between accidental harm arising from consensual activities and deliberate harm, asserting that it would be unjust to classify such activities as criminal solely because of an injury occurring incidentally.

• Considering these factors and legal principles, the court acquitted the defendant of manslaughter charges, as there was no evidence of deliberate harm or intent. The court extended condolences to the deceased's family, emphasizing that the decision was based solely on legal principles.

ORIGINAL ANALYSIS

• Victim consents to harm at the level of battery but Defendant inflicted actual bodily harm accidentally, though it was unforeseen to Defendant that greater damage would occur.

• In this instance consent was deemed by Judge L to be a defence.

  • Surely this was incorrect in law: where actual bodily harm occurs, outside the exceptional categories, Brown showed that consent was no defence and, given that only some harm need be foreseeable under s.20, he ought to have been convicted. 

RELATED CASES

• R v Brown