#19110 - 4 Involuntary Manslaughter & Intoxication Revision - Criminal Law

Criminal 4 Involuntary Manslaughter & Intoxication revision

• Where a victim dies, test for murder before going to before going to manslaughter

Involuntary manslaughter: where D commits AR of murder but doesn’t have the MR, they may be liable for involuntary manslaughter

• Unlawful Act Manslaughter (constructive manslaughter): where D unlawfully caused the death of a human being but without the MR for murder (where there isn’t negligence) [*MR is the MR of the unlawful act]

• D must:

1. Do an UNLAWFUL ACT (Lamb)

• Meaning the defendant committed a criminal offence requiring intent or recklessness (can be any offence e.g. criminal damage, but *usually a type of assault – including simple and battery) – must satisfy AR & MR of offence

• must be a POSITIVE ACT (no omissions) (Lowe)

• crimes for negligence (carelessness) are not enough

2. The act is DANGEROUS: the acts carries the risk of some harm to another person (doesn’t have to be serious harm) (Larkin; Church)

• [objective test] would all sober & reasonable people would foresee that the act carries the risk of some harm to another person? (Church)

• doesn’t matter what the particular defendant thought

• reasonable person doesn’t need to foresee the type of harm, just some (any) harm

• act is dangerous if a person would foresee a risk of some harm if someone tried to intervene (it is dangerous throughout, not only once someone intervenes) (Bristow)

3. The act CAUSED the victims’ death: normal tests

• Factual & Legal Causation:

• but for test

• operating and substantial cause

• intervening events

• (thin-skull rule)

The death doesn’t not have to have been foreseeable

• Manslaughter by Gross Negligence: D is criminally liable for V’s death if they were grossly negligent (higher standard than in negligence civil cases)

• D must have (Adomako)

1. D owed V a duty of care

• judge will direct jury on if there is an established duty (e.g. doctor-patient), or where unclear, jury will decide (Willoughby)

• includes omissions where there is a duty to positively act

• special relationship

• voluntarily assumed responsibility

• contractual duty

• statutory duty

• created dangerous situation

2. Breached duty of care

• ordinary principles of negligence apply

3. was there a reasonably foreseeable risk that D’s conduct could cause death?

• Test: would a reasonably prudent person have foreseen a serious and obvious risk of death (Singh) (risk of injury isn’t enough)

• don’t take into account what D would’ve know if they hadn’t breached duty (R v Rose)

4. Breach caused the victim’s death?

5. D fell so far below the standards of a reasonable person that they can be labelled grossly negligent and deserving of criminal punishment? (Adomako) [for jury to decide]

General Defences of Intoxication (drugs and alcohol)

• INTOXICATION IS ONLY EVER A DEFENCE IF IT CAUSED D TO LACK THE MENS REA of the crime (Kingston)

• Specific intent crime: MR = intent only

• Basic intent crime: MR = intent or recklessness

• VOLUNTARY INTOXICATION: D knowingly and freely intoxicates themselves

• VOLUNTARY INTOXICATION IS A DEFENCE TO SPECIFIC INTENT CRIMES where it caused D to lack the MR (intent) (Majewski)

• if successful, they will be charged with lesser basic intent crime e.g. murder > unlawful act manslaughter

• Dutch courage: if D deliberately drunk/took drugs to give themselves the courage to commit a crime, they cannot rely on voluntary intoxication to negate mens rea (A-G for N. Ireland v Gallagher)

• If D knew they were drinking, but underestimated its effect on them, they are still voluntarily intoxicated (Allen)

• self-defence: where D acts on a mistaken belief concerning the need to defend themselves, voluntary intoxication is not a defence if the mistaken belief was induced by their intoxication (O’Grady)

• criminal damage: where D has made a genuine mistake concerning the defence of lawful excuse, they can still rely on the defence if their mistake was induced by voluntary intoxication (Jaggard v Dickinson)

• voluntary intoxication is not a defence to sexual offences (Heard)

• Involuntary intoxication: D didn’t know they were taking alcohol or drugs (e.g. spiked) or they took a medically prescribed / non-dangerous drugs according to the guidance and it had an unusual side effect

• if D exceeded/didn’t follow guidance = voluntary intoxication

• INVOLUNTARY INTOXICATION IS A DEFENCE TO SPECIFIC OR BASIC INTENT CRIMES where it caused D to lack the MR

• where D took a medically prescribed / non-dangerous drug, involuntarily intoxication will be a defence where (R v Hardie)

1. drug was medically prescribed or non-dangerous (doesn’t have to be prescribed to the consumer)

2. unusual side-effect

• To answer questions:

1. voluntary or involuntary intoxication?

• if voluntary:

  1. did D lack the MR due to intoxication?

  2. If so, is the offence a basic or specific intent crime?

  • Voluntary...