Lecture 6 Manslaughter

Criminal Law: Manslaughter

Overview

Manslaughter is a pivotal concept in criminal law that bridges the gap between murder and lesser criminal offenses. It exists as a response to situations where an offender's actions result in death, yet the circumstances surrounding the act suggest a lesser degree of moral blameworthiness compared to murder. A conviction for manslaughter typically results in a less severe punishment compared to murder, thereby reflecting the nuances of human emotion and behavior in times of extreme stress or provocation. Understanding the various forms of manslaughter, along with their legal implications and defenses, is essential for legal practitioners and those studying criminal law as it comprises both theoretical and practical aspects of the legal system.

Learning Outcomes

Upon completion of this unit, students should be able to:

• Distinguish between different types of manslaughter: Including voluntary manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter, and related defenses.

• Explain the legal principles surrounding loss of control and diminished responsibility: Understand how these defenses apply in cases of manslaughter and how they differ from murder.

• Define unlawful act manslaughter along with its elements: Recognizing the basis of unlawful acts leading to death.

• Explain gross negligence manslaughter, detailing the necessary components of the offense as well as relevant case law.

• Understand subjectively reckless manslaughter, emphasizing the mental state of the defendant at the time of the offense.

Partial Defences: Voluntary Manslaughter

A successfully raised plea of voluntary manslaughter has the potential to convert what would otherwise be a murder conviction into a manslaughter conviction, leading to a significantly less severe sentence. Key partial defenses that can lead to such outcomes include:

Loss of Self-Control

This defense operates on the premise that although a defendant meets the actus reus (A/R) and mens rea (M/R) necessary for murder, mitigating factors—like loss of self-control—can reduce the liability to voluntary manslaughter. It must be noted that this avenue is not viable if a complete defense, such as self-defense, has been proven. If the defense is successful, judicial discretion applies in deciding the appropriate sentence.

Legal Framework: Coroners and Justice Act 2009

The Coroners and Justice Act 2009 marks a significant reform in the handling of provocation leaping from the old standards to a more refined applicable test under Section 54 addressing loss of control. To benefit from this partial defense, the Defendant (D) must:

1. Prove that their actions stemmed from a loss of self-control.

2. Show that this loss was triggered by qualifying circumstances as outlined in the statute.

3. Demonstrate that a person of D's sex and age, possessing typical self-restraint, would have acted similarly under such triggering circumstances.

Rationale for Loss of Control

The rationale for recognizing loss of control as a partial defense rests on the premise that D's culpability is perceived as lesser in situations where an emotional reaction is arguably justified. For example, in situations involving witnessing abuse or immediate personal provocation, such feelings of anger or fear may temper the blame attributed to D.

Types of Triggers for Loss of Control

• Element A: Loss of Self-Control (s. 54(1)(a)): To utilize this defense, D must convincingly demonstrate that their response leading to the victim’s (V) death was initiated by a genuine loss of self-control.

• Element B: Qualifying Trigger (s. 54(1)(b)): As specified in Section 55, two qualifying triggers exist:

  • Trigger 1: Fear of Serious Violence (s.55(3)): This necessitates that D genuinely feared serious violence against themselves or another, with their fear not needing to align with reasonableness as judged by outside observers.

Exclusion to Trigger 1 (s.55(6)(a))

D cannot rely on this trigger if their actions set off the violent encounter with the intent to provoke.

• Trigger 2: Sense of Being Wronged (s.55(4)): D must articulate a legitimate sense of being seriously wronged, triggered by severely inappropriate actions or comments directed at them.

Exclusions to Trigger 2

This trigger is ineffective if the provoking actions stemmed from D’s own behavior, or encompasses issues of 'sexual infidelity' as detailed in Section 55.

Objective Standard of Reasonable Response (s.54(1)(c))

The courts will evaluate D's actions against an objective standard, considering how an ordinary person of D's demographic would likely respond under similar Orchestratedly outrageous circumstances. This raises critical discussions on whether individual characteristics of D, such as psychological state or history, should modify the definition of acceptable self-restraint.

Diminished Responsibility

The partial defense of diminished responsibility allows D to contest their total accountability for the act, emphasizing that they were not entirely in control of their actions due to an abnormal mental condition. It is essential to note that the burden of proof for this defense lies with D, who must convincingly evidence several elements:

1. An abnormality of mental functioning stemming from a recognized medical condition.

2. This impairment must significantly impact their capacity to:

   • Understand the nature of their actions.

   • Form rational judgment.

   • Regulate self-control.

3. There must be a direct causal relationship between this abnormality and the act of killing.

Recognized Medical Conditions

Various psychological conditions such as psychopathy, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and severe depression qualify. R v Byrne is a landmark case that set precedents for defining abnormality in mental functioning.

Unlawful Act Manslaughter (UAM)

Unlawful Act Manslaughter, often referred to as constructive manslaughter, is centered on the notion that an unlawful act (base crime) leads to a fatality. The essential elements that characterize this offense include:

• Intentionality: The act must be deliberate and not merely an act of negligence. For instance, the case Lowe [1973] illustrates that negligent omissions do not suffice for UAM.

• Unlawfulness: There must be an unequivocal act that is unlawful; as seen in Lamb (1967) where the absence of intention to inflict harm resulted in acquittal.

• Dangerousness: The Church (1966) ruling set a clear standard where the act itself must present a reasonable danger to life.

• Causation: A fundamental aspect of UAM, illustrated in Goodfellow (1986), where the actions of the defendant led to the unintended death of a victim.

Gross Negligence Manslaughter

As defined in R v Adams (1994), this form of manslaughter involves several key components:

1. A duty of care owed to the victim.

2. A breach of that duty which falls below the standard of care expected.

3. Evident foresight of reasonably foreseeable harm as a result of this breach.

4. The breach must directly result in death.

5. A finding of gross negligence is essential to ground culpability.

Subjectively Reckless Manslaughter

This charge is applicable when D knowingly engages in actions that pose a substantial risk of death to others. An illustrative case is R v Lidar (2000), where the defendant exhibited reckless disregard for safety leading to a fatal outcome.

Conclusion and Further Study

The elements and complexities of manslaughter law underscore its nuanced nature amid criminal offenses. A thorough understanding of the various forms of manslaughter and their associated defenses is imperative for legal practitioners and students. Further lectures will expand upon related topics such as property offenses, informed by Loveless chapters 10 and 11, to foster a comprehensive legal education.