LAW03: Criminal Law (Offences against the Person) Involuntary Manslaughter: Unlawful Act Manslaughter.

LAW03: Criminal Law (Offences against the Person) Involuntary Manslaughter: Unlawful Act Manslaughter.

Unlawful Act Manslaughter There are 4 elements that must be satisfied... 1. The D must do an unlawful act; 2. The act must be dangerous on an objective level; 3. The act must cause the death; 4. The D must have the mens rea of the original unlawful act.

Unlawful act The death must be caused by an unlawful act which must be a criminal offence. A civil wrong (a tort) will not be enough to satisfy this offence even if it causes death.

Franklin (1883) The D threw a large box into the sea from a pier in Brighton. The box hit and killed a swimmer. It was held that a civil wrong was not enough to satisfy liability for unlawful act manslaughter.

Lamb (1967) The D and his friend were playing with a revolver. They knew there were 2 bullets in a 5 chamber cylinder but thought it would only fire if there was a bullet opposite the barrel. They didn't realise the chamber would revolve and fire from the next chamber. D fired the gun at his friend and killed him. Is D liable for unlawful act manslaughter? No: the V did not fear any violence (an assault) so there was no criminal offence.

If... Omissions are not enough There must be an act. In Lowe (1973) the D was convicted of wilfully neglecting his baby son and convicted of UAM. The CA quashed the conviction because wilful neglect is a failure to act and could not support an offence of UAM.

Khan and Khan (1998) The Ds supplied a prostitute (V), who was a new drug user, with heroin. V injected herself in the D's presence and went into a coma. The Ds left the V's flat and when they returned the next day the V was dead. The CA quashed the conviction. They had omitted to get help when V was in a coma and this was not an act.

Dangerous act The unlawful act must be dangerous on an objective level.

Church (1966) This case defined a dangerous act as...... one "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."

The risk of harm only needs to be some harm, not serious harm. So, if a sober and reasonable person realises the unlawful act might cause "some harm" it is dangerous on an objective level.

Larkin (1943) It does not matter if the D did not realise the risk of "some harm". The D was threatening another man with an open cut-throat razor. The girlfriend of the man tried to intervene but, because she was drunk, she slipped onto the open blade, cut her throat open and died. The D's conviction for UAM was upheld. The act of threatening the man was an assault. It was also dangerous on an objective level.

Mitchell (1983) The act doesn't need to be aimed at the V. The D tried to push his way into a queue at the Post Office. A 72 yr old man told D off. D punched the man causing him to stagger backwards into an 89 yr old woman. The woman was knocked over, was injured and died a few days later from her injuries. D was convicted of UAM.

contd... The D had done an unlawful act (punching the man: battery); and the act was dangerous (a reasonable person would realise "some harm" could occur). So, the D was guilty even though the unlawful act was not aimed at the V.

In fact, the act does not need to be aimed at a person at all. The unlawful act could be aimed at property as long as it met the criteria for a dangerous act...... reasonable person could foresee "some harm".

Goodfellow (1986) The D decided to set fire to his council flat so that the council would have to re-home him. Unfortunately, his wife, son and another woman died in the fire. D was guilty of UAM even though the unlawful and dangerous act was aimed at property and not a person.

The risk of harm includes causing a person to suffer shock. But mere "emotional disturbance" is not sufficient.

Dawson (1985) 3 masked D's attempted to rob a petrol station armed with pickaxe handles. The petrol station attendant managed to sound the alarm but then dropped dead from a heart attack. T h e C A q u a s h e d t h e D ' s convictions because "emotional disturbance" on its own was not enough to amount to harm.

But if a reasonable person would be aware of the V's frailty and the risk of physical harm to the D as a result of emotional disturbance then the D will be liable.

Watson (1989) 2 Ds threw a brick through the window of a house intending to burgle it. The 87 yr old male occupier went to investigate the noise. The 2 Ds physically abused him and then left. The man died of a heart attack 90 minutes later. The CA stated the burglary would have become "dangerous" as soon as the old man's frailty would have been apparent to the "reasonable person".

Workbook page 9

Causing death The unlawful, dangerous act must cause the death of the V. The rules of causation are exactly the same as in murder. The most important point is that if there is an intervening act which breaks the chain of causation the D cannot be liable for UAM.

*DO NOT WRITE THIS DOWN* Consider these two situations. What is the D's unlawful act? Has the D's unlawful act caused the death of the V? The D prepares a syringe of heroin and water and injects it into the V. The V dies from a drug overdose. The D sells heroin to the V. The V prepares a syringe of heroin and water and injects it into themselves. The V dies from a drug overdose.

Workbook page 9

If... Causation has caused problems in cases where the D has supplied V with illegal drugs. If the D supplies the drugs and injects the V with the drugs then there is no break in the chain of causation.

Cato (1976) D and V each prepared a syringe of heroin and water. They then injected the other. V died. D committed the unlawful act of "administering a noxious substance" to the V under s. 23 OAPA 1861.

But problems occur when the D prepares the syringe and hands it to the V who then injects themselves. This poses 2 questions... 1. Has the D done an unlawful act? 2. Has the D caused the V's death or is the selfinjection an intervening act?

Dalby(1982) The D supplied a drug to the V who then self-injected and died. The CA quashed the D's conviction for UAM. Although supplying the drug was an unlawful act it was not the act of supplying the drug that caused the death. The injection caused the death, it was a voluntary act on behalf of the V and broke the chain of causation.

Later cases then suggested that the D could be liable under s. 23 OAPA 1861 having "administered a noxious substance". But this was rejected by the HL in...

In this type of situation there would be no unlawful act under s. 23. The D will not have administered a noxious substance simply by filling a syringe and handing it to the V. The act of self-injection is a voluntary intervening act which breaks the chain of causation. Kennedy (2007)

Therefore, the D could only be guilty if they were involved in administering the injection itself. The Law Lords did however accept that there could be situations where the D and V could both be involved in administering the injection... but didn't give examples.

But in Kennedy (2007) the HL stated that the decision in Rogers (2003) was incorrect...... the D was found guilty after holding his belt around the V's arm (using it as a tourniquet) to help him find a vein. The HL stated this was not administering a noxious substance.

Mens rea for the unlawful act The D must have the mens rea for the original unlawful act. But it is not necessary for the D to realise the act is unlawful or dangerous.

Newbury and Jones (1976) The Ds were 2 teenage boys who pushed a paving stone from a bridge on to a railway line as a train was approaching. The stone hit the train and killed the guard. The Ds were convicted of UAM even though they didn't realise their act was unlawful and dangerous. Having the mens rea for the unlawful act was enough.

Workbook page 10