homicide - involuntary manslaughter

two types of involuntary manslaughter

unlawful act manslaughter

gross negligence manslaughter

unlawful act manslaughter

committed when the D has done an unlawful and dangerous act which causes the death of another human being under the kings peace

authority for unlawful act manslaughter

Newbury

elements of unlawful act manslaughter

1. D must have committed an unlawful act

2. D’s unlawful act must be dangerous

3. D’s unlawful act must have caused death (factual and legal causation)

R v Lamb (toy gun)

there must be a complete, unlawful criminal act present, not just a dangerous act

r v church (objective test)

established 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 therefrom, albeit not serious harm

R v goodfellow (direction at victim)

Need not be proved that D’s acts were directed at the particular V who died or any V at all

D set fire to house in order to damage the house not to kill → reasonable person would have foreseen that setting a house on fire would give rise to obvious risk of death

R v Watson and R v Dawson (dangerousness)

Watson: burglary of eldery lady - died of a heart attack - frailty and age of V highlights dangerousness

Dawson: robbery of petrol station - middle aged healthy man protected by glass window - dangerousness not established as there was no obvious risk of harm

gross negligence manslaughter

committed where death is caused by D’s grossly negligent act or omission

gross negligent manslaughter authority

Adomako

elements of gross negligence manslaughter

1. D owed a duty of care to V

2. D breached that duty of care

3. the breach was grossly negligent

4. breach gave rise to serious and obvious risk of death

5. the breach caused death (factual and legal)

r v rose

serious and obvious risk of death" must be foreseeable at the exact time of the breach, based on information then available, rather than using hindsight to consider what the defendant would have known had they not been negligent

R v kuddus (peanut allergy)

prosecution only need to show that D’s created a serious + obvious risk of death to the class of persons owed a duty, not that the particular victim was personally at such a risk