unlawful act manslaughter

• R v Goodfellow (1986) - unlawful act aimed at property
• R v Lowe (1973) - neglect can't support as it's not an act
• R v Church (1965) - objective test case for arson
• R v Larkin (1993) - doesn't need to be aimed at the victim
• R v Shohid (2003) - unlawful act caused death
• DPP v Newbury + Jones (1976) - don't have to foresee risk of harm
• Unlawful act manslaughter cases involve a risk of some harm, where the harm need not be serious, and if a reasonable person realizes there may be a risk of injury from the unlawful act, then the test is satisfied
• In Rv Larkin (1943), the act doesn't need to be aimed at the victim; for example, if a person threatens another with a razor, it can still be considered unlawful act manslaughter
• In Rv JM and SM (2012), the risk of harm refers to enough risk of physical harm, not the precise harm; fear or apprehension is not sufficient
• Unlawful act manslaughter requires that the unlawful act must cause death, following rules of causation with two types: actual and legal causation
• In cases like Rv Kennedy (2007), if a person supplies drugs or materials to administer a drug to someone else, who then administers the drug and dies, this is not considered unlawful act manslaughter due to the assumption of the person's free will, breaking the chain of causation
• The defendant in unlawful act manslaughter must have the mens rea for the unlawful act committed, not necessarily the intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm
• Unlawful act manslaughter cases include:

  • Lamb (1967)
  • Lowe (1973)
  • Larkin (1943)
  • Goodfellow (1986)
  • Dawson (1985)
  • Newbury and Jones (1976)
• Key Law points for unlawful act manslaughter:

  • There must be an act; unlawful act manslaughter cannot be committed by an omission
  • Causing fear is not enough; the unlawful act must put the victim at risk of physical harm
  • The defendant only needs to have the intention to do the unlawful act, not foresee that it might cause harm
  • The unlawful act can be aimed at property; it must be objectively dangerous and likely to cause harm
  • The act need not be aimed at the victim but must be objectively dangerous and likely to cause harm
• What is the definition of involuntary manslaughter?


  An unlawful killing with no intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm (gbh)
• Can a defendant be liable for involuntary manslaughter if they did not realize death or injury might occur?


  Yes, the defendant is liable even if they did not realize death or injury might occur
• What constitutes a dangerous act in involuntary manslaughter?


  • The unlawful act must be dangerous (objective test)
  • R v Church (1965) defines it as an act that sober and reasonable people recognize as posing a risk of some harm
  • The act does not need to be aimed at the victim
• How does R v JM and SM contribute to the understanding of dangerous acts?


  A reasonable person recognized the unlawful act posed a risk of physical harm, regardless of the precise form of harm
• What is the relationship between risk of harm and physical harm in involuntary manslaughter?


  • Risk of harm equates to physical harm
  • Something causing fear is not sufficient for liability
  • R v Dawson (1985) illustrates this principle
• What does R v Watson (1989) indicate about the defendant's awareness of the victim's fragility?


  If a reasonable person is aware of the victim's fragility, the defendant would be liable
• What must be established regarding causation in involuntary manslaughter?


  • The unlawful act must cause death with no intervening act
  • Factual causation is determined by the "but for" test
  • Legal causation requires the act to be an operating and substantial cause of death
• What is the "but for" test in the context of causation?


  It determines if the death would have occurred but for the defendant's unlawful act
• What does R v White (1910) illustrate about factual causation?


  It demonstrates the application of the "but for" test in determining causation
• What is the significance of R v Pagett (1983) in legal causation?


  It illustrates that the defendant's act must be an operating and substantial cause of death
• What is the mens rea requirement for involuntary manslaughter?


  • The defendant must have the mens rea for the unlawful act
  • The defendant does not need to know that the act is unlawful or dangerous
  • R v DPP v Newbury and Jones (1976) illustrates this principle