Involuntary manslaughter

• 2 types of manslaughter?

  • Constructive manslaughter (unlawful act)
  • Gross negligence manslaughter (lawful act or omission)
• Define Constructive or unlawful act manslaughter

  It cannot be an omission. The unlawful act must be dangerous, on an objective test. The act need not be directed at a person - can be at property if the test, above, still applies. The obvious risk of harm must be physical unless a reasonable person would be aware of the frailty of V. D must have mens rea for the unlawful act, not for the death itself, at the lowest level must be recklessness.
• Define Gross Negligence manslaughter

  D owes a duty of care and is negligent by act or omission. The negligence causes the death of V. The negligence is so 'gross' (so bad) that it deserves punishment. The disregard shown by D's negligence must be to the risk of death.
• What's the key difference between the offences when compared to murder and voluntary manslaughter?

  Intention to kill or cause serious harm for murder and voluntary manslaughter.
• What must UAM require proof of?

  D committed a relevant crime which is also dangerous
• What must prosecution prove for UAM?

  Both actus reus and mens rea for the unlawful act (Larkin)
• Must there be causation in UAM?

  This is crucial and must be the cause of death without an intervening act to break the chain of causation (Pagett, Blau, White, Kimsey). Transferred malice still applies.
• For UAM what is the objective test looking for?

  The question as to whether D's unlawful act, from which the death results, was dangerous. In judging the danger the test is not did D recognise that it was dangerous, but would all sober and reasonable people, overserving D's conduct throughout, recognise its danger. The jury has to decide if D's unlawful act exposed V to risk of 'some harm' (Church)
• Element 1- an unlawful act

  • R v Franklin 1883- must be CRIMINALLY unlawful
  • R v Lamb 1967- there's no unlawful act that leads to the death, they were just playing about
  • R v Arobieke 1988- standing on a platform at a railway is not a criminal act, there's more likely a break in the chain of causation with the victims own daftness (Roberts, Willaims)
  • R v Lowe 1973- neglect is an omission, not an act, so there was no unlawful act
• Element 2- the act must be dangerous

  • R v Larkin- if D is engaging in an unlawful act, and its an act likely to injure another and they die, D is guilty (dangerous, likely to cause injury, unlawful)
  • R v Church- D threw unconscious V into river, he'd acted unlawfully towards V that a sober, reasonable people would see involved risk of injury to V
• Element 2- the act must be dangerous- DEFINITION

  Edmund Davies' definition: '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' (dangerous act capable of causing 'some harm')
• R v Mitchell 1983(UAM)


  D pushed an elderly man at the post office who fell and killed V. Although there was no direct contact between D and V, she was injured and killed as a direct and immediate result of his act. There was sufficient causation as it was reasonably foreseeable that the man would fall onto V - transferred malice.
• R v Goodfellow 1986(UAM)


  unlawful act can be directed at property
• Can an emotional disturbance acting as the 'unlawful act' be sufficient causation for the death in UAM?

  No- only if the unlawful act shocks the victim as to cause him physical harm. In R v Dawson the robbery with fake guns may have caused emotional distress and been an unlawful act, but it did not cause him physical injury so they could not be responsible for the heart attack he had. Furthermore the reasonable man must be taken to know only the facts and circumstances D knew, they did not know V had a bad heart so the reasonable man wouldn't know
• What was the ruling in R v Watson?(UAM)


  Following Dawson and applying the test from the case, the unlawful act had to be dangerous in the sense that all sober and reasonable persons would foresee that it created risk of some physical harm occurring to V, but added that in applying this test, the reasonable person was to be imbued with all the knowledge D had gained throughout the burglarious trespass (eg his realisation of the victims frailty) and not just D's limited or non-existent knowledge at the moment he first entered the property.
• Is an unlawful act found in cases related to the supply of drugs?

  Non for UAM where a person only supplies drugs or materials to another, who then administers the drug to himself and dies. Even when D assists another to take the drug by performing preparatory acts like applying a tourniquet or a syringe because the law assumes free will of informed adults of sound mind, subject to certain exceptions
• Major case to decide cases where the death results from the unlawful supply of drugs?(UAM)

  Kennedy No.3 makes it very clear that fully formed responsible adults self administering the drugs is in no way the suppliers fault and they have no guilt
• Judgements before Kennedy?(UAM)


  Cato, Dalby
• R v Newbury and Jones(UAM)


  Confirmation it's not necessary for D to foresee any harm from his or her unlawful act (objective test)
• The offence of GNM is committed where the death is a result of a grossly negligent (though otherwise lawful) act or omission on the part of D - Adomako
• GNM is a common law offence, it's indictable only meaning it's highly likely you'll go to prison and is seen in the crown court only
• There are many circumstances GNM can occur but what are the most common three?

  1. Death by medical treatment or care; committed by any health care professional, including but not exclusively doctors, nurses, pharmacists, and ambulance personnel
  2. Death in workplace; committed by someone connected to a workplace including offices, factories, ships, airports, construction sights, oil rigs, farms, schools and sporting grounds
  3. Death in custody eg police or prison
• Rules for negligence in Donoghue & Stevenson 1932?

  • duty of car
  • breach of duty
  • risk of death
• Case considered before Donoghue & Stevenson?

  Bateman where gross negligence recognised as the test for manslaughter where the prosecution had to prove that:

  • A owed B a duty,
  • the duty was discharged incorrectly,
  • this failure caused the death of B,
  • A's negligence was so bad as to amount to a crime 'showed such a disregard for life and safety of others as to amount to a crime against the state'
• When was Bateman's test for GNM approved in?

  Andrews 1937 (post D&S) where the words were reestablished
• Adomako is the leading case for GNM

  • D was in breach of a duty of care to V who died
  • the breach caused the death of V
  • it was characterised as gross negligence and therefore a crime
• Most recent case to restate law on GNM?

  Broughton 2020
• Other duty of care examples in GNM?

  • Pittwood, Singh - contractual duty
  • Gibbons and Proctor - relationship
  • Stone and Dobinson - voluntarily undertaken
  • Dytham - official position
  • Miller - chain of events D set in motion
  • Wacker - D knew the safety of the illegal immigrants was in his hands so he'd assumed a voluntarily duty of care but this is unusual because even though it's illegal he still owes a duty
• Mirsa & another


  Argued Adomako's judgement was circular and required the jury to set their own level of criminality when it should be a question of law. Now the question for the jury is not whether D's negligence was gross, and whether, additionally, it was a crime, but whether his behaviour was grossly negligent and consequently criminal. This is not a question of law, but one of fact, for decision in the individual case. The law is clear.
• Kuddus (food allergy for GNM)

  1. a duty of care
  2. a breach of duty
  3. reasonably foreseeable that the breach gave rise to an obvious and serious risk of death
  4. the death was caused by the breach
  5. gross negligence

  Restaurant owners own a duty of care to their customers eg the system should be designed to prevent customers that might present with an underlying condition rather than the obvious and serious risk of death