Unlawful Act Manslaughter

Unlawful Act Manslaughter

The offence occurs when D does not intend to kill or cause GBH but he has committed an unlawful act which has led to the death of V

Actus Reus- D must commit an unlawful act which is dangerous and causes V's death

The act must be unlawfulR v Stone and Dobinson - Stone's sister came to live with the defendants at their invitation. D's took her in and agreed to look after her. She was found dead in her bed in appalling conditions Legal Principle- An omission will be sufficient for UAMR v Franklin - The defendant threw a large box in to the sea off Brighton pier. The box hit and killed a swimmerLegal Principle - It must be a criminal offence; a civil wrong is not enough R v Lamb - D and V were messing around with a revolver. They knew it was loaded with two bullets but they both taught it would not fire. D pointed the gun at v and fired. D was charged with UAM based on assault but the court decided there was no assault in this case Legal Principle- D must have all the elements of the unlawful act. The AR and MRThe act itself must be unlawful. Any act which is unlawful but carried out badly will not fall within UAMThe unlawful act must cause the deathFactual causation must be proved - But for test - R v Pagett, R v WhiteLegal causation must also be proved - Operative and Substantial - R v Smith, R v Jordan Intervening acts breaks the chain of causation- Victims own actions, Actions of a third party and Acts of GodThin Skull Rule - R v Blaue R v Dear - D's daughter accused a man of sexual abuse. The defendant slashed him with a knife. V received medical treatment but he re-opened his wounds in a suicide attempt and died, two days after the attackLegal Principle -Self neglect by V does not break the chain of causation nor does v aggravating their own injuries Drug cases Cato- D injected v. V only prepared the syringe Legal Principle - The unlawful act is administering a noxious substance Kennedy- D filled the syringe and passed it to v. V injected himselfLegal Principle- V is responsible for his own conduct The unlawful act must be dangerous Church- V mocked D's ability to satisfy her sexually and slapped him. D knocked her unconscious tried to wake her but believing she was dead threw her in a river. She drowned. He was convicted.Legal Principle - Church Test; The sober and reasonable person would recognise their is a risk of some physical harmWatson ~Frailty is obvious - D smashed a window and broke into the house of an 87 year old man. He shouted abuse at him and ran off. When the police arrived the man suffered a heart attack and died Legal Principle - A reasonable by stander could have recognised that v is likely to suffer 'some' (physical) harmR v JM and SM~ Frailty not obvious - V, 40 and apparently fit, worked as a nightclub doorman. Unknown to anybody he had a renal artery aneurysm. J and S had been thrown out of the night club they began to fight with v. Two punches were thrown shortly after v's aneurysm ruptured and he died Legal Principle - No need for the reasonable person to foresee the specific harm from which v died, only that V would suffer physical harm of some sortGoodfellow - D had been harassed by two men and wished to move from his council house. In order to get re- housed he set fire to the house making it look like a petrol bomb. His wife son and son's girlfriend died in the fireLegal Principle - The Unlawful act can be to property as long as the sober, reasonable person would realise it carried the risk of some physical harm to a personR v Farnon and Ellis - D, 14, but will a mental age of a 6 year old, set fire to a derelict building whilst someone was inside. D didn't know anyone was inside Legal Principle - It doesn't matter what D's actual perception was

Mens Rea- D must have the mens rea for the unlawful act

The defendant only needs the mens rea for the unlawful act, they do not need to have the mens rea for the death

Newbury and Jones- Two 15 year old boys threw a paving slab off a railway bridge as a train approached. The stone went through a glass window on the cab and killed the guardLegal principle - It is not necessary to prove that D foresaw any harm from his act. D only needs the MR of the unlawful actMitchell- D tried to jump the queue at the post office. An elderly man took issue. He hit the old man and pushed him. He fell back on others in the queue they fell on an old lady who later died.Legal Principle - The unlawful act does not have to be aimed at the victim (transferred malice )