Unlawful Act Manslaughter ULAM - TOPIC 6

Involuntary Manslaughter - General

Definition (AO1)

D charged with manslaughter where D kills V but has no MR for murder (No malice aforethought to kill or cause GBH)

Sentence - Discretionary life sentence.

Types of IVMSL:

1. Unlawful Act Manslaughter (ULAM) - AKA constructive manslaughter - D’s criminal act caused V’s death.

2. Gross Negligence Manslaughter (GNMSL) - D's breach of duty to V caused V’s death.

Unlawful Act Manslaughter

Definition (AO1)

Where D’s criminal act causes V’s death.

-Also known as constructive MS since liability for manslaughter is built upon liability for a lesser offence (Usually battery)

Unlawful Act Manslaughter - Required Elements

Structure (AO1)

1. D committed a criminal offence (both AR and MR)

2. D’s offence was objectively dangerous

3. D’s offence caused V’s death

Unlawful Act Manslaughter - Required Elements

Case (AO3)

(R v Goodfellow)

D set fire to his home, endangering others, resulting in fatalities.

D committed a (lesser) criminal offence
Definition (AO1)

-P must prove all elements of a lesser offence both AR and MR.

The lesser (base) offence is usually battery i.e. D pushes V, V falls and dies from hitting head.

Base offence could be simple assault if V died without D inflicting force i.e. V died of a heart attack from a threat by D

No need to use s47 or s20 and cannot use s18 since intent to cause GBH would be malice aforethought

AR of Base offence

Rules (AO1)

Must be by a positive act (omission by D is not sufficient)

(If D kills by omission then results in GNMSL)

AR of Base offence - omission

Case (AO3)

(R v Lowe)

failing to act when a child was in danger, leading to the child's death.

Constituted that omission does not amount to unlawful act manslaughter, as it must be a positive act.

MR of Base offence

Rules (AO1)

D must have necessary MR for base offence.

Transfer malice still applies

MR of Base offence

Case (AO3)

(R v Lamb)

case where D shot his friend believing it was unloaded, demonstrating lack of necessary MR for the charge.

(DPP v Newbury & Jones)

Ds tipped part of a paving stone onto train which killed the driver. G of ULAM as they had MR for property damage

MR of Base offence - Transferred Malice

Case (AO3)

(R v Mitchell)

D pushed another man, causing him to fall into an elderly woman, resulting in her death.

Possible lesser offences which can result in ULAM

Examples

• Robbery - (R v Dawson)

  D’s attempted a robbery at petrol station with masks and replica guns. V who was 60 died from a heart attack. NG as Dangerous Test did not succeed.

• Burglary - (R v Watson)

  D broke into house of 87 year old man who died from a heart attack as a result. Dangerous test succeeded but NG as causation issue.

• Criminal Damage - (R v Goodfellow)

• Assault - (R v Hayward)

D’s conduct in committing criminal offence was dangerous

Definition (AO1)

-D’s criminal act must be dangerous as assessed by the sober / reasonable person

-Can be a dangerous act against property but must entail the risk of some physical harm to a person.

-Also must be physical harm, not psychiatric!!!

Test for ‘Dangerous’

Test (AO1)

Dangerous Test: “Would a Sober & Reasonable person have recognised that D’s unlawful act created risk of some (physical) harm to V. (Objective)

Test for ‘Dangerous’

Cases (AO3)

(R v Mitchell)

D pushed another man, causing him to fall into an elderly woman, resulting in her death. Passed the Dangerous Test

(R v Church)

D thinking that V was dead (which was irrelevant), threw her into river where she drowned. Seen as dangerous

(R v Dawson)

Did not pass test

(R v Watson)

Did pass test

What is meant by ‘Some Harm’

Definition (AO1)

• Physical injury

• Fright / Shock causing injury

• Not merely fear

There is no requirement for RP to see the particular type of harm which occurred

‘Some harm’ need not be serious - breach of correspondence principle where AR should match MR. There is no requirement that D foresees any risk of harm - Low fault level

‘Some Harm’ - Merely Fear

Case (AO3)

(R v Dawson)

• D’s attempted a robbery at petrol station with masks and replica guns. V who was 60 died from a heart attack. NG as Dangerous Test did not succeed.

Act will only be dangerous if it causes such shock as to result in injury, but not if it is likely only to frighten or cause upset

D’s criminal offence caused V’s Death

Definition (AO1)

P must establish an unbroken chain of causation between D’s offence and V’s death in:

• Causation in Fact - But for

• Causation in Law - De minimis

• No intervening act to break the chain of causation

Consider Fright and flight cases & Drug administration cases .

D’s criminal offence caused V’s Death - Factual

Case (AO3)

(R v White)

Son in-law tried to poison mother but mother died of a heart attack anyway. ‘But for’ D’s conduct, V still would have died so test fails.

D’s criminal offence caused V’s Death - Legal

Case (AO3)

(R v Smith)

Soldier stabbed V (comrade) in back. V was carried on a stretch but dropped twice and suffered negligent medical treatment. D was still guilty

(R v Johnstone and Others)

V (who had heart condition) was playing cricket with son when group of youths, threw stones and shouted abuse at him. One stone fractured V’s cheekbone and V died of a heart attack.

Ds were not guilty as the dangerous act (throwing the stone) could not be established as a more than minimal cause of death.

Fright and Flight Response

Principle (AO1)

V’s conduct in trying to escape D’s unlawful act will not break the chain if reasonably foreseeable

However

If V over reacts in an unexpected (daft) way then this may break the chain

Fright and Flight Response - V escaping D

Case (AO3)

(R v Lewis)

D chased V into road. V was killed by a car. D caused death

Fright and Flight Response - V over reacts unexpectedly

Case (AO3)

(R v Williams)

D (driver) tried to steal V’s (passenger) wallet. V jumped out the car and died. Chain was broken

Drug administration - D injected V

Cases (AO3)

(R v Cato)

D injected V which was an offence. D was G of ULAM

Drug administration - V self-injects

Cases (AO3)

(R v Kennedy [no 2])

D supplied drugs but V self-administered. Supply did not cause death.

ULAM Exam Technique

Structure

Where D kills without malice aforethought:

1. Identify lesser offence (Apply AR + MR)

2. Was D’s conduct objectively dangerous

3. Causation

4. Conclusion

Criticisms OF ULAM

• Vast range in gravity from borders of murder to accidental death and so sentencing can be difficult

• Not all instances of ULAM are fairly labelled and juries may be reluctant to convict D of such a grave offence

• Arguably wrong to hold D liable for an outcome which they did not see