Involuntary Manslaughter Notes

• Introduction

  • involuntary manslaughter: all unlawful homicide other than murder.

    • no malice aforethought: distinguished from murder.

  • difficult to define:

    • [Ld Atkin] in Andrews v DPP [1937]: ‘so many and so varying conditions … absence of intent to kill, but with the presence of an element of “unlawfulness” which is the elusive factor’.

    • Law Commission Report: risk of becoming amorphous ‘catch-all’ offence.

  • 2 forms considered:

    • 1. unlawful act (or constructive) manslaughter: d. causes victim’s death as result of committing some other, lesser criminal offence.

    • 2. gross negligence manslaughter: d. causes victim’s death as result of grossly negligent behaviour.

  Unlawful Act (Constructive) Manslaughter

  • constructive manslaughter: d. lacks MR for murder, but kills someone in course of committing a crime.

  - Definition: DPP v Newbury and Jones [1977]: d. pushed concrete paving slab onto oncoming train, killed guard.

  • 1. d. intentionally (voluntarily) did an act

  • 2. act was unlawful

  • 3. act was dangerous

  • 4. act caused death of victim.

  - Defendant’s act was intentional: only act, not consequences must be intended (i.e. voluntarily done).

  • not omissions: R v Lowe [1973]

  • not negligence: Andrews v DPP [1937]

  - Defendant’s act was unlawful.

  • a. act must be criminal act: i.e. not tort.

    • R v Franklin [1883]: established principle (previously, could be civil).

    • AR + MR must be proven: act must be criminal independent of fact that caused death.

      • R v Lamb [1967]: d. pointed revolver at v. as practical joke, both thought would not fire, but went off no manslaughter: no intention of committing unlawful act.

      • + no defence: R v Scarlett [1993]: d. removed violent v. from d’s pub, v. fell down stairs + died no manslaughter: using reasonable force acting in self-defence.

    • need not be really serious: e.g. can be common assault.

    • need not be offence vs person: e.g. can be criminal damage, if causal link + dangerous.

  • b. act must be intrinsically unlawful: i.e. not because of negligent/reckless performance (e.g. driving).

    • Andrews v DPP [1937]: established principle.

  • c. act not omission.

    • R v Lowe [1973]: d. criminally omitted to look after his 9-week-old daughter no manslaughter.

    • N.B. gross negligence manslaughter: if failure to act while under a duty of care.

  • d. no need for act to be aimed at victim: just needs to be foreseeable that it hurts anyone at all.

    • A-G’s Reference (No.3 of 1994) [1998]: [Ld Mustill]: ‘all that is needed, once causation is established, is an act causing risk to anyone. … any wrongful act leading to death, in circumstances where it was foreseeable that it might hurt anyone at all’ even if actual victim not reasonably foreseeable.

      • affirming R v Goodfellow [1986].

    • examples: R v Larkin; R v Mitchell.

  - Act must be dangerous.

  • R v Church [1966]: [Edmund Davies J]: reasonable person foresees risk of some harm, not necessarily serious harm.

    • facts: d. fought with v., then dumped unconscious body in river

  • objective test: what a sober and reasonable person would appreciate – DPP v Newbury.

  • physical harm must be foreseen – R v Dawson [1985]: [Watkins LJ]: but inc. shock.

  • circumstances to be taken into account: what does sober + reasonable man know?

    • 1. everything reasonable man would have known in d’s position at time of offence.

      • R v Dawson: d. robbed petrol station, did not know of v’s bad heart sober + reasonable man would know robbery could cause fear, but not heart condition.

    • 2. any special knowledge d. had or ought to have known (i.e. obvious to reasonable man).

      • R v Watson [1989]: d. broke into house of old frail man (not knowing), v. later died of heart attack reasonable man would have realised act dangerous once they became aware of v’s condition.

    • 3. NO unreasonable mistakes made by d.

      • R v Ball [1989]: d. mistook live cartridge for blank, shot + killed v. reasonable man would have realised (difference in weight) + not made mistake – act dangerous.

  - Act caused death of victim: factual + legal causation.

  - Causing death by supplying drugs – R v Kennedy (No 2) [2007] clarifies position.

  • a. if d. administers drug to v.: s23 OAPA 1861 – can give rise to unlawful act manslaughter.

    • R v Cato [1976]: d. injected consenting v. with heroin manslaughter: unlawful act under s23 OAPA 1861 (administering noxious thing), consent irrelevant – confirmed by R v Kennedy.

    • R v Kennedy: clarified AR – administering a poison; causing a poison to be administered; or causing another to take a poison (not mere supply).

  • b. if d. supplies drug to v. or assists v. to take drug:

    • if v. unaware of what substance is: s23 OAPA offence may be unlawful act manslaughter.

    • if v. aware: not unlawful act manslaughter – R v Kennedy (No 2): d. supplied heroin in syringe to v., v. injected self + later died.

      • HoL: not manslaughter – simple supply not enough (overturning CoA).

      • rationale: causation – v’s act voluntary + informed decision = novus actus interveniens; + also: supply of drugs itself not dangerous.

    • joint administration: R v Burgess; R v Bryam [2008]: d. prepared drug + helped v. inject it.

    • N.B. offence to supply controlled drug: s4(3)(a) MDA 1971.

  Manslaughter by Gross Negligence

  - Gross negligence: d. breached duty of care by act/omission – so bad that necessitates criminal charge.

  • R v Bateman [1925]: classic definition – negligence ‘showed such...

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our GDL Criminal Law Notes.