unlawful act manslaughter

• Define UAM


  Where D lacks the mens rea of murder but kills the victim in the course of committing an unlawful and objectively dangerous criminal act
• Actus reus of UAM

  1) an unlawful act

  2) that is objectively dangerous

  3) that caused death
• Men's rea for UAM

  D requires the men's rea for the particular unlawful and dangerous act he has committed
• Describe unlawful act in UAM

  - this must be a criminal offence, a civil wrongs will not suffice ( Franklin) and neither will an omission ( Lowe )

  
  

  Lamb - lamb pointed gun at friend and pulled trigger and killed him accidentally

  - D didn't commit unlawful act so can't be liable for death

  - HELD , D hadn't done unlawful act, the pointing of a gun wasn't an assault as the friend did not fear any violence from lamb
• Describe objectively dangerous act in UAM

  - the unlawful act must be dangerous - this is an objective test so it doesn't matter what the D thought, even if they thought there was no risk to anyone else. Defined in Church as " such as all sober and reasonable people would inevitably recognise must subject the V to at least risk of some harm "
• D need not realise his act is dangerous as long as a reasonable person would - case ?


  R v bristle and others

  - burglary of car workshop

  - death of owner by escaping car

  - although burglary isn't necessarily a dangerous act, The CA satisfied that the reasonable person would recognised possibility of someone intervening, and there'd be obvious risk of at least some harm
• The risk of harm has to be physical harm. It is sufficient that the act may cause an injury not necessarily death. something that causes fear is not sufficient this is so even if it causes the person a heart attack


  Dawson - there must be a risk of physical harm - emotional fear on its own is not enough

  - Three defendants attempted to rob petrol station

  - The attendant managed to sound the alarm but dropped dead from heart attack

  - Causing Him fear through the attempted robbery was not a dangerous act and did not make this manslaughter

  - But if the person is aware of the fragility of the victims and the defendant will be liable
• The sober and reasonable person ( jury member ) has the same knowledge as day at the scene

  Watson

  - Two D's broke window and entered a house intending to steal

  - The occupier was a frail 87-year-old man who went to investigate

  - The days physically abused him and then left

  - 90 minutes later the man died of a heart attack

  Held - a court of appeal quashed the conviction but did state that an act of burglary could be dangerous as soon as the old man's condition became apparent to them
• The dangerous act can even be aimed at property

  Goodfellow

  - D set fire to his council flat so he could be rehoused by the council

  - fire got out of control and his wife, son and another woman died

  - He was convicted of manslaughter and appealed

  - HELD - CA upheld the conviction as all and elements of UAM present
• 3) must cause the death


  The unLawful dangerous act must cause the death so the normal rules of causation apply
• 4) men's rea


  It must be proved that the D had the mens rea for the dangerous unlawful act but it isn't necessary to prove that the d foresaw any harm from his act
• Men's rea case


  Newbury and Jones 1976

  - D was two teenage boys threw a stone from a bridge onto a line as a train was approaching

  - The stone hit the train and killed the Guard

  - They were convicted of manslaughter

  - House of Lords stated that it wasn't necessary to prove the defendant foresaw any harm