DISCLAIMER: all information in these module reviews is taken from our own notes and research so please do not cite this in your work.
Welcome to the fifth instalment of our Module Reviews!
Our current focus now turns to Criminal law, with this Review covering the topic of involuntary manslaughter. This is a brief summary intended to give a basic overview of the topic for those beginning their journey into Criminal law. Throughout this Review, I have cited criminal cases as authority for much of the information given, which you can find italicised throughout.
Involuntary Manslaughter
Like voluntary manslaughter (covered in the previous Module Review), involuntary manslaughter is an umbrella term used to cover multiple offences. The one thing each of these offences have in common is that the defendant (D) has committed the actus reus of murder but does not have the mens rea. There are three types of involuntary manslaughter, which we will cover below.
Unlawful and Dangerous Act Manslaughter (also known as Constructive Manslaughter)
Unlawful and Dangerous Act Manslaughter, sometimes called Constructive Manslaughter, can be broken down into three key elements, which the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt.
1. The defendant has committed an unlawful act – quite simply, the defendant must have committed an act that is unlawful, a crime. This covers situations outside of what you might associate with killing – for example, it could be something as simple as a battery (which we will cover in a future Review), such as nudging someone whilst they are stood at the top of the stairs, causing them to fall and die.
However, the key thing to consider is that it must be a crime, a civil wrong will not suffice. This is illustrated well in the case of Franklin – the defendant threw a box into the sea off a pier, which struck and killed a swimmer. The defendant could not be guilty of unlawful and dangerous act manslaughter as the act he committed was not a crime, but the civil wrong of littering.
2. The act must also be dangerous – the act committed must also be dangerous as well as unlawful. But how do we assess dangerousness? The case of Church gives the definition of dangerous as ‘such as all sober and reasonable people would recognise subjects the other person to at least the risk of some physical harm.’
It is quite clear that this is therefore an objective test, not taking into account what the defendant considers to be dangerous. The court added in Dawson that the test ‘can only be undertaken upon the basis of the knowledge gained by the sober and reasonable man as though he were present at the scene of and watched the unlawful act being performed’. This means that, for example, if someone is visibly frail, this will be taken into account.
3. The act must cause death – this is to be worked out using the rules of causation discussed in the first Review of this series (you can find this here).
Gross Negligence Manslaughter
Following the case of Rose v R, Gross Negligence Manslaughter can be neatly summarised in five steps.
1. The defendant owes a duty of care to the victim – the defendant must owe a duty of care to the victim applying the ordinary principles of the law of negligence (Adomako). This may be difficult to ascertain if you are approaching this part of the law having never studied negligence, so here are some examples of relationships where a duty of care is present:
Doctor/patient (Adomako)
Captain/crew (Litchfield)
Police officer/arrested suspect (West London Coroner, ex parte Gray)
Teacher/pupil (Paul Ellis)
2. The defendant negligently breached their duty – the jury must decide whether the defendant negligently breached their duty, namely by falling below the standard expected of a reasonable person. This can be committed by an act or omission.
3. It was reasonably foreseeable that the breach gave rise to a serious and obvious risk of death – according to the case of Singh, ‘the circumstances must be such that a reasonably prudent person would have foreseen a serious and obvious risk of not merely injury, even serious injury, but death.’ This is an objective test, assessing whether the risk of death would have been obvious to the reasonably prudent person.
4. The breach of duty caused death – the breach must cause death, applying the principles of causation we covered in topic one.
5. The negligence must be gross – the negligence committed must be over and above that which is sufficient to establish civil liability (Bateman), being ‘truly exceptionally bad’ (Bawa-Garba). This is an objective test and may vary from case to case depending on the facts.
Key Debate: is the test for Gross Negligence Manslaughter clear enough for juries? Some would argue its definition is circular in that the defendant’s actions will be considered criminal if the jury think it falls so far below proper standards that it should be judged criminal.
Subjective Reckless Manslaughter
Subjective Reckless Manslaughter is perhaps the rarest form of involuntary manslaughter; this is because, where its elements are satisfied, it is often possible to charge the defendant with one of the other types of involuntary manslaughter, both of which are easier to prove.
There are three key elements to the offence:
1. The defendant killed the victim.
2. The defendant foresaw a risk of death/serious injury.
3. It was unreasonable for the defendant to take the risk.
Thank you for reading this weeks’ Module Review! In part four, we will go on to look at non-fatal offences against the person – assault, battery, ABH and GBH and wounding.
Comments