Unlawful act manslaughter cases

R v Franklin

Ds trespassed onto the old Brighton pier and threw a box off the edge hitting a swimmer causing them to drown. As the crime was a civil offence they could not be convicted of unlawful manslaughter.

R v Lamb

D and V were playing with a revolver that they believed was a fixed chamber gun and therefore was not loaded. D pointed the gun and pulled the trigger at V but grounds for assault could not be found as V thought it was empty so they wouldn’t have apprehended harm. Therefore, no unlawful act had been committed and D wasn’t liable.

R v Lowe

D was of low intelligence and unable to take care of his baby so it died. The judge directed if neglect could be found D should be convicted of unlawful act manslaughter, However, as an act is required and neglect is a failure to act, there was no liability under unlawful act manslaughter.

R v Goodfellow

D petrol bombed his council house to try and get rehomed. The fire got out of control and multiple people were killed. D was held to be liable for unlawful act manslaughter

R v Meeking

D and her husband got in an argument on the motorway and without warning she pulled the handbrake causing the car to spin and collide with another killing people. D was liable as the handbrake pull is an unlawful act under road traffic legislation.

R v Church

D and V were having sex when V insulted D and slapped him so D hit her knocking her out. Believing she was dead he too her to a river and put her in it. Her body was recovered and she was found to have died from drowning in the river. The Church tes emerged as ‘ all sober and reasonable people would inevitably recognise, at least, some harm resulting therefrom’

R v Nica

D was part of a gang transporting illegal immigrants into the country. On one trip they were not supplied with enough oxygen and they all died. It was irrelevant that D had done this before without any problems nor that the victims were also committing illegal acts. D was liable for unlawful act manslaughter.

R v Larkin

D threatened a man with a straight blade razor when his mistress tried to intervene but she was drunk and she fell on the razor cut her artery and died. D was liable for unlawful act manslaughter as the threat was objectively dangerous.

R v JM and SM

Two brothers were causing a ruckus at a nightclub and were asked to leave by security and they the initiated the fight. During the fight of the bouncers arteries exploded due to an underlying issue he wasn’t aware of. Even though they had not killed him their objectively dangerous acts had led to his death so they were liable.

R v Dawson

Ds entered a petrol station with a fake gun and knives to rob it. They did not threaten the attendant but he died of a heart attack there and then. They were not liable as their actions hadn’t been dangerous as to cause the heart attack.

R v Kennedy

D gave his friend some heroin he had prepared and they took it and died. It was ruled D hadn’t caused the death as the man had taken it of his own free will which is an intervening act in the chain of causation. Even if the supplier of the drugs makes preparatory actions the self-induced nature breaks the chain.

DPP v Newbury and Jones

Ds pushed a paving stone off a bridge onto a train killing the train guard. As they had the MR to push the stone which was both illegal and dangerous they had sufficient MR for the offence.

Elements of unlawful act manslaughter

• The defendant must do an unlawful act

• That act must be dangerous on an objective test

• The act must cause the death

• The defendant must have the MR for the unlawful act

R v Dawson

To satisfy the elements the act must be dangerous. This can arise if D should have recognised the frailty of their victim. Here D robbed an elderly man’s house which caused V to have a heart attack and die an hour later. While the robbery itself wasn’t a dangerous act the obvious frailty of the victim made it become one.

R v Dunn and Delay

The circumstances of an otherwise non-dangerous crime can make it become dangerous. Ds robbed a car shop but then ran over and killed the owner when he tried to stop them. While the robbery wasn’t dangerous driving the car straight at him was and therefore sufficient at this test.