Unlawful Act Manslaughter - Homicide

What are the components of UAM? And what is the case law precedent that defines it?

R v Burstow provides a definition for Unlawful Act Manslaughter →

The crime of unlawful act manslaughter comprises -

1. An unlawful act intentionally performed

2. In circumstances rendering it dangerous

3. Causing death

R v Franklin on the first component of UAM which is ‘an unlawful act intentionally performed’ (not just a civil wrong or mere negligence)

R v Franklin stated that manslaughter is not a civil wrong.

R v Andrews on the first component of UAM which is ‘an unlawful act intentionally performed’, what is the context and case? (not just a civil wrong or mere negligence)

Context → The defendant decided to overtake a slower vehicle and accidentally crashed into a pedestrian, killing him.

Outcome → The court concluded that a “simple lack of care that will constitute civil liability is NOT ENOUGH […] there are DEGREES of negligence.”

• This means that the driver was so negligent that the case goes beyond mere civil liability. The defendant must have demonstrated such disregard for life that it is a crime.

R v Meeking on the first component of UAM which is ‘an unlawful act intentionally performed’, what is the context and case? (not just a civil wrong or mere negligence)

Context → D had an argument with her husband in the car, she pulled the handbrake of the car and ended up killing her husband.

Outcome → The court concluded that it was negligence, but there was an active interference on the wife’s part.

• Negligence falling short of gross negligence is prosecuted as UAM

R v Lamb on the first component of UAM which is ‘an unlawful act intentionally performed’, what is the context and case? (unlawful act manslaughter must be a full crime such as an example of assault/battery)

Context → D pointed gun at his friend unaware that it was on, his friend thought it was a joke and D accidentially killed him.

Outcome → He was not charged with UAM, because there was no mens rea and no crime of assault, since the complainant did not apprehend immediate unlawful personal violence

Importance → R v Lamb concluded that when there is no base offence (such as assault), then there is no UAM.

R v Kennedy on the first component of UAM which is ‘an unlawful act intentionally performed’, what is the 3 requirements stipulated within it? (unlawful act manslaughter must be a full crime such as an example of assault/battery)

R v Kennedy outlines

1. The defendant committed an unlawful act

2. The unlawful act was a crime

3. That the defendant’s unlawful act was a significant cause of the death of the deceased

R v Lowe on the first component of UAM which is ‘an unlawful act intentionally performed’, whether UAM requires an act or an omission?

R v Lowe emphasises that UAM has to be an act, not an omission.

R v Mitchell on the first component of UAM which is ‘an unlawful act intentionally performed’, what is the context and outcome? Does UAM need to be directed at the victim or not?

Context → D had punched the old man which led to him being pushed onto an older woman, leading to her death

Outcome → The court outlined that UAM does NOT need to be directed at the victim.

R v Dhaliwal on the first component of UAM which is ‘an unlawful act intentionally performed’, what is the context and outcome? Does UAM need to be directed at the victim or not?

Context → Husband physically and emotionally abused his wife and she ended up committing suicide.

Outcome → The court outlined that if a partner torments and abuses their partner which eventually leads them to commit suicide, it could amount to UAM.

R v Lipman on the first component of UAM which is ‘an unlawful act intentionally performed’, what is the context? Does the prosecution have to disprove any defences or not?

Context → A case where D was on LSD and killed his girlfriend whilst on a LSD trip, thinking she was a snake.

The prosecution does have to disprove any defences.

What is the case law precedent that defines the test for dangerous in the second component of UAM and what is it?

R v Church provides the test for dangerousness

It is “the unlawful act must be such as all sober and reasonable people would inevitably recognise must subject the other person to, at least, the risk of some harm resulting from the act, but not serious harm”

DDP v Newbury & Jones expands on the test of dangerousness (2nd component of UAM), what does it say?

DPP v Newbury & Jones outlined that the test for dangerousness outlined in R v Church is an objective test

• “but would all sober and reasonable people recognise its danger”

R v Dawson also expands on the test of dangerousness in terms of defining ‘risk of some harm’ (2nd component of UAM), what is the context and outcome, and what does it state?

Context → D had pointed a gun at an older man and they fleed after the man pressed the alarm and the older man died shortly after.

Outcome → Court concluded emotional disturbance isn’t enough to be defined as ‘risk of some harm’ and stated that the sober reasonable person has the SAME knowledge as the defendant, NOT anyone else

R v Watson also expands on the test of dangerousness in terms of defining ‘risk of some harm’ (2nd component of UAM), what is the context, and what does it state in importance?

Context → D was about to burgle a home, they did not know that the man’s home, they began to shout at him and the two defendant’s realise it was the gentleman’s home.

Importance → R v Watson concluded the jury can take into account knowledge gained by D during the offence (they gain/learn knowledge as the defendant does)

R v Ball also expands on the test of dangerousness in terms of defining ‘risk of some harm’ (2nd component of UAM), what does it state in importance?

R v Ball concluded that D’s own appreciation / belief as to the situation is IRRELEVANT

R v Carey also expands on the test of dangerousness in terms of defining ‘risk of some harm’ (2nd component of UAM), what is the context and outcome?

Context → The victim was subject to an unprovoked attack such as bullying and being punched by the defendant, the victim then ran 109 meters and had died of a heart attack afterwards. They were previously unaware that the victim had a diseased heart previously.

Outcome → The case lacked ‘quality of dangerousness’, since it wouldn’t be recognised by a sober, reasonable bystander that a healthy 15 year old would be at risk of suffering shock from this attacked by D

R v JM & SM also expands on the test of dangerousness in terms of defining ‘risk of some harm’ (2nd component of UAM), what does it outline?

In R v JM & SM, it was emphasised that the reasonable person does not have recognise “the precise form or “sort” of harm which did ensue”

what is meant by the 3rd requirement of UAM ‘causing death’?

Causing death means ordinary rules of causation apply (factual and legal causation)