Involuntary Manslaughter

• What is Involuntary Manslaughter?

  Two types of involuntary manslaughter that D could be charged with:

  • unlawful act manslaughter
  • gross negligence manslaughter
• Unlawful act manslaughter Actus Reus:

  1. D must do an unlawful act. The unlawful act must be a crime: LAMB

  • e.g. assault, battery, theft, robbery
• Unlawful act manslaughter Actus Reus:

  1. D must do an unlawful act. The unlawful act must be a crime: LAMB

  • e.g. assault, battery, theft, robbery
  • An omission is insufficient: LOWE
• Unlawful act manslaughter Actus Reus:

  2. The unlawful act must be dangerous. A reasonable person must foresee a risk of some harm to another person resulting from D’s unlawful act: CHURCH
• Unlawful act manslaughter Actus Reus:

  3. The unlawful act must be both a cause in fact and law of V’s death. If there is an intervening act which breaks the legal chain of causation, then D cannot be liable for unlawful act manslaughter.
• Unlawful act manslaughter Mens Rea:

  • Finally, it must be proved that D had the mens rea for the unlawful act. (The mens rea is the crime committed.)
  • It is not necessary for D to realise that the act is unlawful or dangerous: DPP v NEWBURY AND JONES.
• Gross negligence manslaughter Actus reus:

  According to ADOMAKO:

  D must owe V a duty of care; and

  D, by his act or omission, breached the duty of care; and

  D’s negligence must have caused V’s death; and

  There must be a serious and obvious risk of death in the circumstances; and

  D’s negligence must be gross
• Gross negligence manslaughter Actus reus:

  According to ADOMAKO:

  1. D must owe V a duty of care.
• Gross negligence manslaughter Actus reus: According to ADOMAKO:

  1. D must owe V a duty of care.

  • Where D has done a positive act that has killed, there is likely to be a duty of care where the act created a risk of death which was obvious to a reasonable person.
  • ADOMAKO held a duty of care was owed by a doctor towards a patient.
  • Motorists owe a duty of care to other road users and pedestrians: ANDREWS v DPP
  • Where D’s omission causes V’s death, the prosecution may seek to rely on the criminal law of omission to establish a duty.
• Gross negligence manslaughter Actus Reus: According to ADOMAKO:

  2. D, by his act or omission, must have breached his duty of care

  • This will be so where D fails to reach the standard of care required of the reasonable person in the same circumstances: ADOMAKO.
• Gross negligence manslaughter Actus Reus: According to ADOMAKO:

  3. D’s negligence must be both a cause in fact and law of V’s death. If there is an intervening act which breaks the legal chain of causation, then D cannot be liable for gross negligence manslaughter.
• Gross negligence manslaughter Actus Reus: According to ADOMAKO:

  4. The circumstances must be such that a reasonable person would have foreseen a serious and obvious risk of death: MISRA
• Gross negligence manslaughter Actus Reus: According to ADOMAKO:

  5. Finally, D’s negligence must be gross. The jury must consider whether, having regard to the risk of death, D’s conduct was so bad in all the circumstances as to amount to a criminal act or omission: ADOMAKO.