Sunteți pe pagina 1din 35

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.
It is, however, not necessary for the reasonable
person to foresee the particular type of harm the V
suffers.

The reasonable person only needs to foresee 'some


harm'.
JM and SM (2012)

In this case the CA held


that the reasonable
person only had to
foresee some harm and
not a specific type of
harm.
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.
Burglary is an unlawful act that is not normally
dangerous under the Church definition.

But, it could be carried out in such a way that the


offence could be dangerous.
Bristol, Dunn and Delay (2013)

The Ds burgled the V's


workshop and used 2 vehicles
to get to the workshop.

V was found dead near the


workshop a few hours after the
burglary after being hit by one
or both of the vehicles.

CA upheld convictions as a
reasonable person would
foresee the risk of some harm
resulting from the burglary.
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.

The CA quashed the 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".
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.
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 self-


injection 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 ...


Kennedy (2007)

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.
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.

S-ar putea să vă placă și