Involuntary Manslaughter Unlawful Act Manslaughter Definition of Unlawful

  • Slides: 8
Download presentation
Involuntary Manslaughter – Unlawful Act Manslaughter

Involuntary Manslaughter – Unlawful Act Manslaughter

Definition of Unlawful Act Manslaughter • Where D causes the victim’s death whilst carrying

Definition of Unlawful Act Manslaughter • Where D causes the victim’s death whilst carrying out a criminal act which is deemed to be dangerous • To prove D is guilty of UAM, need to prove he has committed an act which is: • • Unlawful Dangerous One that caused death D had mens rea for the unlawful act

1. The Unlawful Act • Must be a criminal offence – act as a

1. The Unlawful Act • Must be a criminal offence – act as a result of ignorance or foolishness is insufficient if no criminal offence is involved • Lamb – man shot dead while playing a dangerous game with a gun. Both men thought the bullets would not fire unless they were opposite the barrel. D pointed the gun at his friend and pulled the trigger. Although dangerous and fatal the act of pointing the gun was not unlawful and his friend was not in fear of harm so there was no assault. Act must be a crime • Must be an act – omission would not be enough – this makes UAM different from murder, voluntary manslaughter and Gross Negligence Manslaughter

Dangerous Act • Objective test • Church – all sober and reasonable people would

Dangerous Act • Objective test • Church – all sober and reasonable people would recognise it would subject the other person to the risk of some harm, not necessarily serious harm • Mitchell – harm does not need to be aimed at victim – D punched someone in a post office queue who fell back and knocked over an old lady causing her injuries from which she died • Dawson – risk must be of some harm, not just fear. Attempted robbery at petrol station by three men using pickaxes and an imitation gun. Cashier suffered from heart disease and shock caused a heart attack from which he died. Court held that when assessing whethere is a risk of harm the jury must imagine they possess the knowledge that D had or should have had at the time of the offence • Watson – victim was a frail and old man who suffered a heart attack after D burgled his house. Would have been obvious to the reasonable person that some harm could come to this victim • Goodfellow –It is enough for dangerous act to be aimed at property if an individual dies as a result. D committed arson which resulted in death.

Substantial Cause of Death • Normal rules of chain of causation and thin skill

Substantial Cause of Death • Normal rules of chain of causation and thin skill rule apply • Corion-Auguiste – firework thrown into bus station. Old lady died in panic rush. D’s act was direct cause of death • Kennedy – victim injected himself after being given drug by D. Chain of causation broken • Shohid – Not necessary that it should be the only cause. D was one of a group of men who attacked victim and forced him onto railway track. Victim prevented from climbing back onto platform by some of the attackers (not D) and was killed by train. Court held original attack was serious enough to be a cause of the subsequent death • Lewis – D chased victim after a car incident. Victim ran into road and was run over by another vehicle. Held that the assault was a continuing act and it was the cause of death – victim’s attempted escape in response to the assault was foreseeable – no break in chain of causation • Attorney-General’s Reference (1982) – girl died after a series of unlawful acts, any one of which could have caused death. It was not necessary to prove which particular act was responsible

Mens Rea – FOR THE UNLAWFUL ACT • Need intention for the unlawful act

Mens Rea – FOR THE UNLAWFUL ACT • Need intention for the unlawful act – NOT THE KILLING • Either intent or subjective recklessness depending what the unlawful act was • Newbury and Jones – boys killed a train guard by pushing a piece of paving stone off a bridge as a train approached. Court held that D does not need to foresee that his act might cause harm to another, or be aware that his act was unlawful, or intend the risk of injury. It is enough that he realise what he was doing and had the intention of doing it. Risk of injury must be obvious to a reasonable person of normal intelligence. • Le Brun – D, without intending serious harm, hit his wife on the chin during an argument. She fell unconscious and he dragged her away in order to avoid detection. In doing so, he caused her head to hit the pavement and her skull to fracture which caused her death. Court held that although original act was not the direct cause of her death, it was part of the “sequence of events” and it was enough that the original punch was intentional

Overlap between Gross Negligence and Unlawful Act Manslaughter • Goodfellow – D could have

Overlap between Gross Negligence and Unlawful Act Manslaughter • Goodfellow – D could have been found guilty of GNM and UAM. Intention was to set fire to his council house. Intended that adults should rescue children and all escape unharmed. Three people unable to escape and died

Unlawful Act Manslaughter Where D causes the victim’s death whilst carrying out a criminal

Unlawful Act Manslaughter Where D causes the victim’s death whilst carrying out a criminal act which is deemed to be dangerous 1. Was there an unlawful act? 2. Was it a dangerous act? 3. Did the act cause the death? 4. Did D have the mens rea for the unlawful act (not the killing)?