UDA

• Definition:

  • Unlawful killing of a human where AR has taken place but without the MR for murder
  • D does not have the intention to kill or cause really serious harm, D has intent for another underlying unlawful and dangerous act
  • Can be a property offence (Goodfellow - Arson)
  • Criminal damage (DPP v Newbury and Jones)
• Unlawful act:

  • Civil wrongdoing is not sufficient must be a criminal act
  • Franklin - 'mere fact of a civil wrong ought not to be used as a necessary step in a criminal case'
  • If the prosecution cannot establish the underlying criminal offence, then there is no possibility of UDA, even if a dangerous act
  • R v Lamb - not assault
  • AR must be a positive action, not an omission (Lowe)
• Mens rea:

  • Prosecution must prove that D had the MR for the underlying unlawful act
  • SL - Andrews
  • Can be intent or recklessness
  • No MR required in relation to the death
  • Not necessary for D to realise
  • Aspect is objectively obsessed (DPP v Newbury and Jones)
  • Endorsed in R v Farnon and Ellis
• Dangerousness:

  • Something that 'is likely to injure another person' (Larken)
  • It must be objectively dangerous (POV of bystander)
  • R v Church - 'all sober and reasonable person would recognise... risk of some harm, albeit not serious harm'
  • No need for person to foresee the actual 'type' of harm that results, just that some physical harm was possible (R v JM and SM - no need to see specific harm of rupturing artery)
  • Just causing fear or apprehension is not sufficient, even where it results in a heart attack (R v Dawson)
• Pre-existing knowledge:

  • When determining dangerousness, consideration of Ds pre-existing knowledge about V/situation and any knowledge that D acquires during the commission of the unlawful act, such as knowledge of danger (R v Fardon and Ellis - circumstances known to D)
  • Confirmed in R v Long, Bowers and Cole - act in the circumstances was dangerous
• Dangerous act need not be aimed at V that dies:

  • R v Mitchell - 'innocent agent'
  • R v Larkin - 'act likely to injure another person, and quite inadvertently he causes the death of that other person by that act'
• Against property:

  • Can be aimed at property - 'risk of some (physical) harm'
  • R v Goodfellow - set fire to the property in attempt to move
• Causing the death:

  • Final element is proof that the unlawful act caused the death
  • Must be a proven casual link between the act and the death (R v mitchell)
  • Where there is an intervening act that breaks the chain of causation, D cannot be liable (R v Cato - D injected drug into V)
  • Contrasted in R v Dalby, injecting themselves broke the chain (Confirmed in R v Dias and upheld in Kennedy)