Involuntary Manslaughter Notes

• Where the jury cannot prove the MR for murder: difficult to define

  • Lord Atkin in Andrews v DPP: ‘based mainly, though not exclusively, on the absence of intent to kill, but with the presence of an element of ‘unlawfulness’

1. Unlawful act (constructive) manslaughter; and

2. Manslaughter by gross negligence

Unlawful act (constructive) manslaughter

• Accused lacks the MR for murder but kills someone in the course of committing an unlawful act

• DPP v Newbury and Jones: modern definition: to be guilty the prosecution must prove –

1. The D(s) intentionally (voluntarily) did an act;

2. The act was unlawful;

3. The unlawful act was dangerous;

4. The unlawful act caused the death of the victim

1. The D’s act was intentional

• Intentional as to the act not to the consequences which flow from it

2. The D’s act was unlawful

1. The unlawful act must be a criminal act

   • crime not a tort (civil):

     • R v Franklin: civil wrong cannot be used as ‘an incident which is a necessary step in a criminal case’

   • The criminal act must be independent of the fact that it has caused death

     • Must prove the AR and the MR

     • R v Lamb: D pointed a revolver at the victim as a practical joke: both parties believed there was no risk of the revolver firing a bullet – could not make out the MR for assault so could not be guilty of unlawful act manslaughter (did not have necessary intention)

     • Scarlett: If the D is using reasonable force in acting in self-defence then there will be no unlawful act manslaughter (had a defence)

   • Can arise from any criminal offence

2. The act must be intrinsically unlawful

   • Cannot be based on a lawful act which becomes unlawful because of the negligent or reckless manner in which it was performed: e.g. driving – Andrews v DPP (cannot be based on negligence)

3. There must be an act rather than an omission

   • R v Lowe: Cannot be based on an omission – must be on a positive act

     • Failure to do something whilst under a duty would correctly be charged as gross negligence manslaughter (here criminal omission to look after 9 week old daughter)

4. There is no need for the act to be aimed at the victim

   • A-G’s Reference (No 3 of 1994): ‘all that is needed, once causation is established, is an act creating a risk to anyone’

3. The unlawful act was dangerous

• R v Church: the sober and reasonable man would recognise that some harm, albeit not serious would result from the act

• Objective test based on what the reasonable person would appreciate: DPP v Newbury

1. Type of harm

   • R v Dawson: the type of harm likely to result from the act must be physical rather than emotional: although Watkins LJ seemed to recognise shock leading to actual physical harm

   • R v JM & SM: fight btw brothers and bouncers – 1 bouncer later collapsed and died (weakened blood vessel ruptured) – CA: no need to foresee precise type of harm, just that some harm might occur

2. Circumstances to be taken into account

   • Dangerousness judged by sober, reasonable man : takes into account any facts known to the D

   • R v Dawson: test can only be based on a reasonable man who has the same knowledge as D and no more (trial judge had misdirected Jury that the D would have had knowledge of the V’s bad heart)

   • But :could become liable if he became aware of special knowledge during the commission of the offence which would make the act dangerous:

     • R v Watson: D(s) did not know that the elderly frail victim was present. CA said that the reasonable man would have realised it was dangerous once they became aware of the particular circumstances: the unlawful act comprised the whole of the burglarious intrusion

   • R v Ball: D claimed he had mistakenly thought he’d put a black cartridge into gun but the reasonable man wouldn’t have made the mistake – reasonable man has any special knowledge that the D has

   • So it is assumed:

1. The sober and reasonable man knows everything he would have known if he had been in the D’s shoes at the time of the offence

2. The sober and reasonable man has any special knowledge that the D has or ought to have known

3. Being reasonable he does not make any unreasonable mistakes made by the D

4. The unlawful act caused the death of the victim

• Normal rules of causation apply: must be the factual and legal cause of the death of the victim

Causing death by supplying drugs

1. Administration of the drug by the D: where X directly administers drug to Y

• R v Cato: D argued that there was no unlawful act as the V had consented – CA held that there was unlawful act manslaughter, D had acted unlawfully by administering a noxious thing contrary to s23 OAP 1861

• Confirmed by R v Kennedy

2. Supply of drugs and assisting the deceased to take drugs: where X merely supplies Y with the drugs or assists him

• If the deceased is deceived then supplier may still be guilty of an offence under s23 OAPA – elements in R v Kennedy – this s23 offence could form the basis of a conviction for unlawful act manslaughter

• Situations where the deceased voluntarily consumes the drugs, in awareness of what they are taking:

  • Confusion as to what the unlawful act was (accessory ‘taking drugs’ Cato) (supplying drugs in R v Rogers; R v Finlay) and causation issues (taking = NAI)

  • Issues determined by HL in R v Kennedy: D supplied a dose of heroin in a syringe which he handed to the victim, who injected himself and suffered adverse reaction

    • HL: manslaughter will never be found where the D supplies a class A drug to someone who then voluntarily self-administers (in the case of a fully informed and responsible adult)

    • The act of supplying is not in itself dangerous

    • Need a breach of s23 OAP 1861 for unlawful act manslaughter

• ‘Joint administration’ – R v Burgess, R v Byram: CA concluded that you can have unlawful act manslaughter in cases of joint administration, as it is so close to administration that it constitutes an unlawful act (Byram had prepared the drug, drew it into the syringe, helped the deceased find a vein and may have helped him inject it – helped to withdraw the needle from...

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