In Franklin, it was stated that the unlawful act must be a criminal offence, a civil wrong (tort) is not enough for the purpose of unlawful act manslaughter
The unlawful act must be dangerous from an objective basis, in Church (1966) it was stated: "...the sober and reasonable person would foresee that some harm might occur from the defendant's actions, it does not have to be serious harm."
In Goodfellow it was stated that the unlawful act does not need to be aimed at a person; it can be aimed at property as long as it carries the risk of causing some physical harm
However, it has been decided in Watson that where a reasonable person would be aware of the victim's frailty and the risk of physical harm to him, then the D will be liable
The unlawful act must cause V's death. The rules on causation are the same as for murder. If there is an intervening act which breaks the chain of causation, then the D cannot be liable for manslaughter.
It must be proved that the D had the mens rea for the unlawful act, but it is not necessary for the D themselves to realise that the act is unlawful or dangerous as seen in Newbury and Jones