1. Involuntary Manslaughter – Unlawful Act Manslaughter

2. Definition of Unlawful Act Manslaughter Where D causes the victim’s death whilst carrying out a criminal act which is deemed to be dangerous To prove D is guilty of UAM, need to prove he has committed an act which is: Unlawful Dangerous One that caused death D had mens rea for the unlawful act

3. The Unlawful Act Must be a criminal offence – act as a result of ignorance or foolishness is insufficient if not criminal offence is involved Lamb – man shot dead while playing a dangerous game with a gun. Both men thought the bullets would not fire unless they were opposite the barrel. D pointed the gun at his friend and pulled the trigger. Although dangerous and fatal the act of pointing the gun was not unlawful and his friend was not in fear of harm so there was no assault Must be an act – omission would not be enough – this makes UAM different from murder, voluntary manslaughter and Gross Negligence Manslaughter

4. Dangerous Act Objective test Church – all sober and reasonable people would recognise it would subject the other person to the risk of some harm, not necessarily serious harm Mitchell – harm does not need to be aimed at victim – D punched someone in a post office queue who fell back and knocked over an old lady causing her injuries from which she died Dawson – attempted robbery at petrol station by three men using pickaxes and an imitation gun. Cashier suffered from heart disease and shock caused a heart attack from which he died. Court held that when assessing whether there is a risk of harm the jury must imagine they possess the knowledge that D had or should have had at the time of the offence Watson – victim was a frail and old man who suffered a heart attack after D burgled his house. Would have been obvious to the reasonable person that some harm could come to this victim Goodfellow – D committed arson which resulted in death. It is enough for dangerous act to be aimed at property if an individual dies as a result.

5. Substantial Cause of Death Normal rules of chain of causation and thin skill rule apply Corion-Auguiste – firework thrown into bus station. Old lady died in panic rush. D’s act was direct cause of death Kennedy – victim injected himself after being given drug by D. Chain of causation broken Shohid – D was one of a group of men who attacked victim and forced him onto railway track. Victim prevented from climbing back onto platform by some of the attackers (not D) and was killed by train. Court held original attack was serious enough t be a cause of the subsequent death – not necessary that it should be the only cause Carey – girl died as a result of a heart disease while running away after a fight. Held that victim had not been running away from a serious threat but merely to get home. Only dangerous act was a single punch which was not the cause of her death Lewis – D chased victim after a car incident. Victim ran into road and was run over by another vehicle. Held that the assault was a continuing act and it was the cause of death – victim’s attempted escape in response to the assault was foreseeable – no break in chain of causation Attorney-General’s Reference (1982) – girl died after a series of unlawful acts, any one of which could have caused death. It was not necessary to prove which particular act was responsible

6. Mens Rea Need intention for the unlawful act Newbury and Jones – boys killed a train guard by pushing a piece of paving stone off a bridge as a train approached. Court held that D does not need to foresee that his act might cause harm to another, or be aware that his act was unlawful, or intend the risk of injury. It is enough that he realise what he was doing and had the intention of doing it. Risk of injury must be obvious to a reasonable person of normal intelligence. Le Brun – D, without intending serious harm, hit his wife on the chin during an argument. She fell unconscious and he dragged her away in order to avoid detection. In doing so, he caused her head to hit the pavement and her skull to fracture which caused her death. Court held that although original act was not the direct cause of her death, it was part of the “sequence of events” and it was enough that the original punch was intentional

7. Overlap between Gross Negligence and Unlawful Act Manslaughter Goodfellow – D could have been found guilty of GNM and UAM. Intention was to set fire to his council house. Intended that adults should rescue children and all escape unharmed. Three people unable to escape and died