1. Involuntary Manslaughter Unlawful Act Manslaughter

2. Actus reus Involuntary manslaughter has the same actus reus as murder (unlawful killing) but a different mens rea. Murder requires an intention to kill or to cause grievous bodily harm, whereas involuntary manslaughter does not state what the required mens rea is, just that it is something other than the intention to kill or to cause grievous bodily harm. Involuntary manslaughter

3. Voluntary and involuntary manslaughter In cases of voluntary manslaughter, the defendant commits murder but has one of the three partial defences contained in the Homicide Act 1957. Involuntary manslaughter is a separate crime. Involuntary manslaughter

4. Types of involuntary manslaughter Involuntary manslaughter There are two types of involuntary manslaughter: constructive manslaughter (unlawful and dangerous act) gross negligence manslaughter

5. Comparing types of involuntary manslaughter Constructive manslaughter is also known as unlawful and dangerous act manslaughter. Gross negligence manslaughter is based on the rules of civil negligence, with the extra requirement of risk of death. It was established in the case of R v Adomako (1994). Involuntary manslaughter

6. Constructive (Unlawful act) manslaughter Involuntary manslaughter: constructive

7. Elements The act must be unlawful. The case of Lamb (1967) stated that the unlawful act must also be a criminal offence rather than a tort (civil wrong). The unlawful act must be considered dangerous. The test for dangerousness was established in R v Church (1967). It is an objective test in that the ordinary reasonable person would see a risk of some harm. Substantial cause of death Constructive manslaughter requires an unlawful act – an omission is not sufficient (R v Lowe, 1973). The transferred malice rule applies (R v Mitchell, 1985).

8. R v Church (1966) In this case, the Court of Appeal established the test for dangerousness. The unlawful act must be such as ‘all sober and reasonable people would inevitably recognise must subject the other person to, at least, the risk of some harm resulting therefrom, albeit not serious harm’. Involuntary manslaughter: constructive

9. Church (1966) It need not be the accused who necessarily foresaw the harm, but any ‘sober and reasonable’ person The risk may be only ‘some harm’, not necessarily serious harm

10. The harm need not be aimed at the victim – Mitchell (1983) The harm intended must be actual physical harm – Dawson (1985) Dangerous act may not be intended to cause harm to a person – Goodfellow (1986)

11. Causation The normal rules of causation apply. Involuntary manslaughter: constructive

12. Substantial cause of death The act must be the substantial cause of death Same principles such as chain of causation and thin rule apply Corion-Auguiste (2004) Kennedy (2007) contrast with Cato Carey (2006) A-G ref (No.4 of 1980) (1982)

13. Mens rea The defendant does not require any mens rea that shows that he or she intended or foresaw a risk of death. Instead, the defendant must have the mens rea required for the unlawful and dangerous act. R v Lamb (1967): the defendant killed his best friend with a revolver. He did not have the appropriate mens rea, as neither of the men thought the gun would fire. He was not liable. The Goodfellow test (1986) summarises constructive manslaughter. Involuntary manslaughter: constructive

14. Newbury and Jones (1976) Le Brun (1991)

15. Overlap between GN & UAM Goodfellow

16. Extras

17. Unlawful act manslaughter

18. There is no evaluation of this area so you only need the current law and a few case examples in support This type of manslaughter is also called constructive manslaughter It is ‘constructed’ from three elements

19. An unlawful act Which is dangerous Which causes death Unlawful act manslaughter

20. The act must be a crime itself – Lamb It must be an act not an omission – Khan Look up the following cases. It was manslaughter rather than murder in each. What was the unlawful act? Nedrick Woollin Pagett

21. This is an objective test – Church Would a reasonable person see a risk of some harm resulting from the act? The act need not be aimed at the victim – Mitchell The risk must be of ‘some harm’, not just fear Compare Dawson and Watson (see worksheet)

22. Causation is an important element in manslaughter, as it is in murder. The rules are the same Look at Cato, Dalby and Kennedy (see worksheet) It now seems clear that if the victim self- administers the drug, the supplier will not be liable for manslaughter if V dies There must be an active participation (as in Cato)

23. In Nedrick the unlawful act was arson (a type of criminal damage) A reasonable person would see a risk of some harm resulting from setting fire to a residential house The criminal damage caused the death as the child died in the fire

24. In Woollin, the throwing of the baby was unlawful, a type of assault A reasonable person would see a risk of some harm resulting from throwing a baby across a room The throwing of the baby directly caused its death

25. In Pagett, shooting at the police was the unlawful act A reasonable person would see a risk of some harm resulting from shooting at the police The police returning fire was foreseeable so did not break the chain of causation between D shooting at them and the death of the girl

26. There is no special mens rea for this type of manslaughter It is the mens rea for the unlawful act Which is either intent or subjective recklessness, most often the latter There is, therefore, no need to prove mens rea as regards the death, only the unlawful act

27. The mens rea for criminal damage is intent or subjective recklessness as to whether property is damaged In Hancock & Shankland it would be enough to prove they recognised the risk of damaging property and went ahead anyway They threw a concrete block onto a taxi so would have recognised the risk of damage to the road, even if not the car They had mens rea for the unlawful act, this act caused the death, so it was manslaughter

28. In Khan gross negligence manslaughter was considered but for this D must owe V a duty of care None was found in Khan but it was considered again in Dias The CA said gross negligence manslaughter would be possible in certain circumstances if a duty could be established See gross negligence manslaughter for more. In an exam you may need to discuss both

29. Unlawful act manslaughter An unlawful act Which is dangerous And which causes death Mens rea is that for the unlawful act