UAM structure

intro

D does not have malice aforethought and may be guilty of involuntary manslaughter. Here it is UAM in relation to [LINK BACK TO SCENARIO].

unlawful criminal act

For UAM, first there must be an unlawful criminal act (Lamb). In Lamb there was no unlawful act because an assault was not committed. An omission is not enough (Lowe). It cannot be a civil wrong (Franklin). Here, [LINK BACK TO SCENARIO -> ADRESS THE UNLAWFUL CRIMINAL ACT (BATTERY FOR EXAMPLE) AND IF THE AR IS SATISFIED]. The ar of [UNLAWFUL CRIMINAL ACT] is satisfied.

dangerousness test

In Church the court outlined the test for dangerousness which was that the act must be such as 'all sober and reasonable people would inevitably recognise must subject the other person to the risk of some physical harm, albeit not serious harm." D does not need to have foreseen that some harm will occur from his action (DPP v Newbury and Jones). [APPLY DANGEROUSNESS TO SCENARIO: All sober and reasonable people would recognise that...].

causation

The unlawful act must cause death. This means factual and legal causation must be proven. Here, it can be said that but for [APPLY TO SCENARIO] (White). The defendant's actions must have significantly contributed to the outcome, meaning they must be more than a minimal cause (R v Pagett). [APPLY TO SCENARIO, DEAL W/ INTERVENING ACTS IF ANY TO SEE IF BREAK CAUSATION]. So, D remains to be the factual and legal cause of death.

mens rea

The defendant need only have the mens rea for the original unlawful act, and need not intend or have foreseen the risk of death. Direct intention is D's main aim or purpose (Mohan) and recklessness is D foreseeing a risk and taking it anyway (Cunningham). [STATE MR OF OG UNLAWFUL ACT AND APPLY IT]. So the mr of [ORIGINAL CRIMINAL ACT] therefore is satisfied.

conclusion

All the elements of UAM are satisfied and D could be found guilty, if so, they will be sentenced at the discretion of the judge up to a maximum of life imprisonment.