CS - Unlawful Act Manslaughter

• Newbury and Jones (1976)


  Where D causes the death of V through an unlawful and dangerous act, without malice aforethought for murder, and with only the mens rea for the unlawful act.
• Lowe (1973)


  There must be an act - an omission is insufficient. The "unlawful act" must be a criminal offence.
• Lamb (1967)


  D and his friend were fooling around with a loaded revolver. Unfortunately, one of them was killed, but no "unlawful act" existed because they did not properly understand the mechanism of such a gun and had not expected it to fire. V was not therefore in fear of being shot.
• Church (1966)

  V mocked D after sex in a van. D knocked out v and threw her into a river thinking V was already dead. The unlawful act must be "dangerous" on an objective test, i.e. such as all sober and reasonable people would inevitably recognise must subject the other person to, at least, the risk of some harm, albeit not serious harm.
• Goodfellow (1986)


  D set fire to his council house with the motive of getting rehoused. He had no intention to endanger life but unfortunately his wife, son and his son's girlfriend were all killed. Ratio: D was convicted of unlawful act manslaughter. It did not matter that his act of arson was not directed at anyone.
• JM & SM (2012)


  Following a fight in a nightclub, V died from a ruptured artery that was a rare injury to have occurred. Ratio: The test for danger is whether a sober and reasonable person would foresee the risk of SOME HARM. It did not matter that they would not foresee the particular type of harm that occurred.
• Dawson (1985)


  V died from a heart attack when Ds held up a petrol station. Ratio: To satisfy the danger test, the risk of harm must be a risk of physical harm. A risk of emotional disturbance is NOT enough by itself.
• Watson (1989)


  V died of a heart attack 90 minutes after being burgled. Ratio: The burglary became dangerous as soon as the old man's frailty would have been apparent to the reasonable person.
• Bristow, Dunn and Delay (2013)


  V had been hit by vehicles used by Ds to commit burglary of a workshop that was located down a long lane. There was a risk that someone might try to intervene to prevent escape. Ratio: The circumstances of the burglary meant that a reasonable and sober person would foresee the risk of some harm.
• Kennedy (2007)


  D prepared an injection of heroin and water for V to inject himself. V self-injected and died. Ratio: V's voluntary act in injecting himself broke the chain of causation between D's supply and V's death.
• Newbury and Jones (1976)


  Youths had thrown paving slabs from a bridge onto a passing train and killed the guard. Ratio: D only needs to have the MR of the unlawful act. It was not necessary to prove that D foresaw any harm from his act.