Criminal Law 2 Involuntary Manslaughter

Front 1

Definition of Involuntary Manslaughter

Back 1

No intent to cause death or serious injury but caused the death of another through
1. recklessness or
2. criminal negligence

Front 2

Types of involuntary manslaughter

Back 2

There are two types of involuntary manslaughter:
1 constructive manslaughter exists where the defendant commits an unlawful dangerous act which results in death; where the defendant commits a lawful act which results in death this may amount to gross negligence manslaughter.
2. where the defendant commits a lawful act which results in death this may amount to gross negligence manslaughter.

Front 3

Elements of constructive manslaughter

Back 3

1. There must be an unlawful act

2. The unlawful act must be dangerous

3. The unlawful dangerous act must cause death

Front 4

All elements of the unlawful act must be present. What is case?

Back 4

R v Lamb [1967]
R v Lamb [1967] 2 QB 981

Two boys were playing with a revolver. There were two bullets in the chamber but neither were opposite the barrel. The two boys believed that this meant it would not fire. One of the boys pointed the gun at the other and fired. As he pulled the trigger the chamber turned and the gun went off killing the boy. The other was charged with unlawful act manslaughter.

Held:

There was no unlawful act as no assault had been committed as the victim did not believe the gun would go off therefore he did not apprehend immediate unlawful personal violence.

Front 5

There must be an unlawful act, omissions will not suffice- give example case

Back 5

R v Lowe [1973] QB 702 Court of Appeal


The appellant's child died from neglect. The trial judge directed the jury that if they found him guilty of the offence of neglect they must also find him guilty of manslaughter on the grounds that neglect was an unlawful act. The jury convicted him of both neglect and manslaughter.

Held:

Appeal allowed. For constructive manslaughter there must be an unlawful 'act'. The offence could not be committed by an omission.

Front 6

The unlawful act need not be directed at the victim-= example case.

Back 6

R v Goodfellow (1986) 83 Cr App R 23 Court of Appeal

The appellant had been harassed by two men and wished to move from his council accommodation. In order to get re-housed he set fire to his house making it look as if it had been petrol bombed. Unfortunately his wife, son and son's girlfriend all died in the fire.

Held:

His conviction for manslaughter was upheld. There was no requirement that the unlawful act was directed at the victims nor that it was directed at a person.

Front 7

The unlawful act must be dangerous, however, dangerous is not given its ordinary and natural meaning. The specific meaning of dangerous was given by Edmund Davies LJ in what case?

Back 7

R v Church [1965] 2 WLR 1220

Sylvia Notts mocked the appellant's ability to satisfy her sexually and slapped his face. A fight developed during which the appellant knocked her unconscious. He tried to wake her for 30 mins to no avail. He believed she was dead and threw her body into a river. Medical evidence revealed that the cause of death was drowning and she therefore had been alive when he threw her into the river. The trial judge made several errors in his direction to the jury and in the event they convicted of manslaughter rather than murder. The appellant appealed on the grounds of misdirection.

Held:

Whilst there were several errors in the judge's direction the conviction for manslaughter was safe.
"The conclusion of this Court is that an unlawful act causing the death of another cannot, simply because it is an unlawful act, render a manslaughter verdict inevitable. For such a verdict inexorably to follow, the unlawful act must be such as all sober and reasonable people would inevitably recognise

Front 8

Compare Watson 1989 and Dawson 1985

Back 8

Dawson
Three defendants attempted to rob a petrol station. They wore masks and were armed with a pickaxe handle and replica guns. The petrol attendant was aged 60 and suffered from heart disease. After the attendant sounded the alarm the defendants fled empty handed. The attendant then suffered a fatal heart attack. The trial judge directed the jury that they must decide whether the actions of the defendant were dangerous by looking at the actions form the point of view of a reasonable man who knew all the facts that they know. The defendants were convicted of manslaughter and appealed.
Held:
The convictions were quashed. The jury was aware of the attendant's heart condition WHEREAS A REASONABLE PERSON PRESENT AT THE TIME OF THE ATTACK WOULD NOT HAVE KNOWN THIS. The direction to the jury was therefore a mis-direction leaving the convictions unsafe.

Watson 1989

The appellant smashed a window and broke into the house of an 87 year old man, Harold Moyler. Moyler went to investigate and the appellant shouted a

Front 9

The sober man of course does not make an unreasonable mistake. a mistaken belief cannot be imputed to sober and reasonable person. What case shows this?

Back 9

R v Ball [1989]
The appellant was involved in a dispute with a neighbour over her parking her car on his land. The neighbour’s car then disappeared and she and two men went to the appellant's house to question him about it. Things got out of hand and the appellant went and grabbed his shot gun and what he believed to be blank cartridges. He fired a shot at her intending to frighten her. In fact the cartridge was live and she died from her injury. He was convicted of manslaughter and appealed on the basis that the jury should have been directed that his mistaken belief that the cartridges were blank should be taken into account in assessing whether the sober and reasonable man would have regarded his actions as dangerous.

Held:

The appeal was dismissed.
"The question of whether the act was a dangerous one is to be judged not by the appellant's appreciation but by that of a sober and reasonable man and it is not possible to impute into his appreciation the mistaken belief of th

Front 10

What case shows that to amount to dangerous for these purposes the sober and reasonable person must recognise the act as inevitably resulting in physical harm:

Back 10

Carey 2006

Aimee Wellock, aged 15, and three friends went out for an early evening walk. They came across the three appellants who had been drinking. The appellants started making fun of Aimee and her friends and then became physically violent. Aimee had her head pulled back and was punched in the face. Two passing motorcyclists stopped and shouted at the appellants and they ran off. Aimee then ran off. She ran just over 100 metres but then unfortunately she collapsed and died. It transpired that she had a severely diseased heart and the run had induced a ventricular fibrillation which resulted in her death. The three appellants were convicted of affray and constructive manslaughter. They appealed against the manslaughter conviction.

Held:

The manslaughter convictions were quashed. The physical assault on Aimee was not the cause of death. The cause of death was Aimee running away in fear, however, this was not act which the hypothetical sober and reasonable person would regard as subjecting Aimee to some

Front 11

The unlawful dangerous act must cause death. Show this isparticularly problematic for the courts in relation to where a death occurs from taking drugs.

Back 11

The question arises as to whether those who supply such drugs can be liable for manslaughter. Where the defendant actually injects the drug to another person resulting in death, the position is quite straight forward. The defendant's unlawful act is administering a noxious thing contrary to s.23 Offences Against the Person Act 1861 and this act causes death. The defendant is liable for manslaughter notwithstanding the fact that the victim consented to the injection.

Front 12

Discuss Kennedy and related cases in between 1 and 2. What is conclusion?

Back 12

In a reaffirmation of autonomy, voluntariness and informed capacity the House of Lords in Kennedy [2007] has restored orthodoxy in cases where relative to causation V's act of injection, subsequent to supply of the drug by D, operates as a new intervening act in terms of homicide liability. They asserted that an independent act by a fully informed actor breaks the chain of causation. D who supplies heroin to V for self-injection will not be guilty of unlawful act manslaughter of V who is a fully-informed adult who autonomously decides to inject himself, and subsequently dies from the injection of heroin. The “free and voluntary” self-administration of the drug is affected by V, an act to which choice applies, and it is insufficient for culpability that D facilitated or contributed to this administration.
The case of Kennedy (No.1) sent our law down a blind alley. D supplied V with a heroin-filled syringe. V paid him and injected it and subsequently died. D was convicted of manslaughter. It was felt that

Front 13

5 stage test of gross negligence?

Back 13

1. owes duty
2.breaches duty
3.breach involves an obvious risk of death
4.the breach causes death
5.jury finds breach serious enough to be a crime ie. "so bad" test

Front 14

Breach of duty case ?

Back 14

Adomako 1994

[Manslaughter by gross negligence subsumes reckless manslaughter]
D, an anaesthetist, failed to observe during an eye operation that the tube inserted in V’s mouth had become detached from the ventilator, causing V to suffer a cardiac arrest and eventually die.



Held: D was guilty of manslaughter by gross negligence, which is established where D breached a duty of care towards V that caused V’s death and that amounted to gross negligence.

Lord MacKay LC:

“…gross negligence…depends…on the seriousness of the breach of the duty committed by the defendant in all the circumstances in which he was placed when it occurred and whether, having regard to the risk of death involved, the conduct of the defendant was so bad in all the circumstances as to amount in the jury’s judgment to a criminal act or omission”.

the essential ingredients of involuntary manslaughter by breach of duty:

(1) proof of the existence of the duty;
(2) breach of that duty causing death; and
(3) gross ne

Front 15

How to answer breach of duty?

Back 15

1.make realistic argument about the expectations of a reasonably competent professional
2. only draw attention to facts suggesting the defendant has fallen below a reasonable standard of competence.

"So bad" test

Front 16

What is first case for MGN

Back 16

R v Bateman 19 Cr App R 8

A doctor was convicted of manslaughter arising out of his treatment of a woman in childbirth. Lord Hewitt CJ gave the following guidance in relation to gross negligence manslaughter:

"If A has caused the death of B by alleged negligence, then, in order to establish civil liability, the plaintiff must prove (in addition to pecuniary loss caused by the death) that A owed a duty to B to take care, that that duty was not discharged, and that the default caused the death of B. To convict A of manslaughter, the prosecution must prove the three things above mentioned and must satisfy the jury, in addition, that A's negligence amounted to a crime. In the civil action, if it is proved that A fell short of the standard of reasonable care required by law, it matters not how far he fell short of that standard. The extent of his liability depends not on the degree of negligence but on the amount of damage done. In a criminal court, on the contrary, the amount and degree of negligence are the d

Front 17

Does Reckless Manslaughter still exist today?

Back 17

There are three types of manslaugher: 1.) gross negligence manslaughter, 2.) constructive manslaughter and 3.) (subjective) reckless manslaughter. The latter category covers manslaughter whereby the defendant foresees the risk of death or serious injury but not to the extent required in Woollin (ie. virtual certainty) for him/her to be convicted of murder. It also covers areas where D is charged with muder but has a partial defence like provocation or diminished responsibility and so is found liable for manslaughter instead. Where, for example, an appellate court substitutes a verdict for manslaughter and where D enters a guilty plea for manslaughter having pleaded "not guilty" to murder.

In practice, there's little authority of convictions for reckless manslaughter because it's usually dealt with as "constructive manslaughter" where death results from assault or some other dangerous unlawful act.

Front 18

Duty of care – drugs supply – gross negligence manslaughter

Back 18

R v Evans 2009
The victim was a drug addict. Her half sister obtained drugs from a dealer and supplied them to the victim. The victim overdosed and died. Evans was charged and convicted of gross negligence manslaughter.
The Court of Appeal held that Evans owed a duty of care to the victim to seek help for her. The duty owed was to counteract the situation which Evans had created by supplying the drugs. The appeal against conviction was dismissed.
Where a person dies after taking drugs, the supplier cannot be guilty of unlawful act manslaughter, but can, following Evans, be guilty of gross negligence manslaughter if they fail to ‘counteract the situation’ which they have ‘created’.