Unit 4 – Involuntary Manslaughter and the Defence of Intoxication –
1. Understand the elements required for unlawful act and gross negligence manslaughter
and make sound judgments on how these offences apply in practice.
2. Demonstrate a systematic knowledge and understanding of involuntary manslaughter
and apply this to factual scenarios to determine criminal liability.
3. Show critical awareness of the general defence of intoxication operates to absolve a
defendant of criminal liability in a range of scenarios.
1. Unlawful Act/constructive Manslaughter –
An unlawful act that is dangerous and which causes the victim's death
DPP v Newbury “an accused is guilty of manslaughter if it is proved that he..
- intentionally did an act
- that was unlawful and
- dangerous and
- that act inadvertently caused death…
- It is unnecessary to prove that the accused knew that the act was unlawful or
dangerous” -
Defendant need not intend to kill or foresee death but must prove mens rea of the
unlawful act
Intentional act – requiring proof of intention or recklessness R v Lamb
- Positive act
- Crime of negligence not sufficient
- Omission will not amount to unlawful manslaughter – R v Lowe – conviction of child
death by neglect was quashed as neglect did not amount to a positive act
Unlawful act – must be a criminal offence R v Lamb
- Must satisfy AR and MR of said criminal offence
- Civil tort cannot form the basis for constructive manslaughter – the unlawful act
must be a criminal offence Franklin
- No liability where defendant has acted in self-defence to an unlawful act Webster v
Crown Prosecution Service
Dangerous – Test: R Watson
1. Objective “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 Church –
, - not what the defendant believed the situation to be
- Matter of fact of the jury to decide
- Not necessary for the defendant to have seen it as dangerous
- Risk of physical injury
- Will not take ages and mental capacity into consideration JF and NE -
2. Reasonable and sober bystander (independent of the act)– would they believe it to
be dangerous M
3. Recognition of harm – on the facts known to the defendant at time –
sober and reasonable person, sharing the knowledge the defendant
gained during the commission of the unlawful act, would have recognised
a risk of some harm to the victim
- R v Dawson - the reasonable man is deemed to have the
knowledge that the defendant had, or should have had, at the
time of the offence
- R v Watson where the risk of harm becomes obvious to the
reasonable person present at the scene of the crime, the
defendant’s unlawful act becomes dangerous how does this fit in
with thin skin rule
- R v Ball – the defendant’s mistaken belief that the act was not
dangerous could not be attributed to the reasonable man -
objective test of sober reasonable person
R v Bristow – objectively dangerous act – use of vehicles, fleeing from the scene on a single
lane track = particularly dangerous as anyone to intervene would be put in danger
** For unlawful act manslaughter the prosecution must prove that the man committed an
unlawful act. On the facts he commits battery (the infliction of unlawful personal force) -
which is dangerous meaning the reasonable person would consider it carries a risk of some
risk of some harm to some person - R v Church [1966] - and the act causes death. The
defendant need only have the mens rea for the initial unlawful act (in this case,
battery). Here the man clearly intends the push.
Injecting drugs - unlawful act manslaughter and maliciously administering poison or a
noxious thing so as to endanger life or inflict grievous bodily harm under s.23 of Offences
against the Person
must prove that the injection was a cause of death,
consent is not a defence
Self-injecting drugs Kennedy
supplier of the drug is not guilty of unlawful act manslaughter because the free and
voluntary act of self-administration breaks the chain of causation
The unlawful supply of the drugs does not cause the death of the victim where
thevictim made a voluntary and informed decision to inject himself with the drugs
1. Understand the elements required for unlawful act and gross negligence manslaughter
and make sound judgments on how these offences apply in practice.
2. Demonstrate a systematic knowledge and understanding of involuntary manslaughter
and apply this to factual scenarios to determine criminal liability.
3. Show critical awareness of the general defence of intoxication operates to absolve a
defendant of criminal liability in a range of scenarios.
1. Unlawful Act/constructive Manslaughter –
An unlawful act that is dangerous and which causes the victim's death
DPP v Newbury “an accused is guilty of manslaughter if it is proved that he..
- intentionally did an act
- that was unlawful and
- dangerous and
- that act inadvertently caused death…
- It is unnecessary to prove that the accused knew that the act was unlawful or
dangerous” -
Defendant need not intend to kill or foresee death but must prove mens rea of the
unlawful act
Intentional act – requiring proof of intention or recklessness R v Lamb
- Positive act
- Crime of negligence not sufficient
- Omission will not amount to unlawful manslaughter – R v Lowe – conviction of child
death by neglect was quashed as neglect did not amount to a positive act
Unlawful act – must be a criminal offence R v Lamb
- Must satisfy AR and MR of said criminal offence
- Civil tort cannot form the basis for constructive manslaughter – the unlawful act
must be a criminal offence Franklin
- No liability where defendant has acted in self-defence to an unlawful act Webster v
Crown Prosecution Service
Dangerous – Test: R Watson
1. Objective “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 Church –
, - not what the defendant believed the situation to be
- Matter of fact of the jury to decide
- Not necessary for the defendant to have seen it as dangerous
- Risk of physical injury
- Will not take ages and mental capacity into consideration JF and NE -
2. Reasonable and sober bystander (independent of the act)– would they believe it to
be dangerous M
3. Recognition of harm – on the facts known to the defendant at time –
sober and reasonable person, sharing the knowledge the defendant
gained during the commission of the unlawful act, would have recognised
a risk of some harm to the victim
- R v Dawson - the reasonable man is deemed to have the
knowledge that the defendant had, or should have had, at the
time of the offence
- R v Watson where the risk of harm becomes obvious to the
reasonable person present at the scene of the crime, the
defendant’s unlawful act becomes dangerous how does this fit in
with thin skin rule
- R v Ball – the defendant’s mistaken belief that the act was not
dangerous could not be attributed to the reasonable man -
objective test of sober reasonable person
R v Bristow – objectively dangerous act – use of vehicles, fleeing from the scene on a single
lane track = particularly dangerous as anyone to intervene would be put in danger
** For unlawful act manslaughter the prosecution must prove that the man committed an
unlawful act. On the facts he commits battery (the infliction of unlawful personal force) -
which is dangerous meaning the reasonable person would consider it carries a risk of some
risk of some harm to some person - R v Church [1966] - and the act causes death. The
defendant need only have the mens rea for the initial unlawful act (in this case,
battery). Here the man clearly intends the push.
Injecting drugs - unlawful act manslaughter and maliciously administering poison or a
noxious thing so as to endanger life or inflict grievous bodily harm under s.23 of Offences
against the Person
must prove that the injection was a cause of death,
consent is not a defence
Self-injecting drugs Kennedy
supplier of the drug is not guilty of unlawful act manslaughter because the free and
voluntary act of self-administration breaks the chain of causation
The unlawful supply of the drugs does not cause the death of the victim where
thevictim made a voluntary and informed decision to inject himself with the drugs
