Unlawful Act Manslaughter
Unlawful Act Manslaughter
It must be
shown the defendant committed an unlawful act, the unlawful act was dangerous,
the defendant’s unlawful act was a significant cause of death to the victim and
the defendant must have the mens rea for the act caused.
The unlawful
act must be a criminal offence that causes injury, not an omission.
Lamb [1967]: Defendant and his best friend were playing around
with a loaded revolver. The gun contained 5 chambers, 3 were empty and 2
contained bullets. They were playing Russian roulette. The defendant pointed
the gun at his victim and the victim was still laughing, he pulled the trigger,
blowing the friends brains out. His defence was, he didn’t mean to cause any
harm. He didn’t realise that when he pulled the trigger that the barrel would
turn and engage a bullet. Held, there was no unlawful act taking place.
Jennings [1990]: Two brothers walking down the street. One brother was
carrying a knife, the other brother tried to restrain him and unfortunately got
stabbed, and he died. He was found not guilty of his brother’s manslaughter as
simply walking with a knife was not a criminal offence and he had no intention
of stabbing his brother. Therefore there was no intended unlawful act.
Franklin [1883]:
Defendant whilst standing on Brighton pier picked up an empty wooden crate and
threw it into the sea. Unfortunately there was a swimmer who was killed by the
wooden crate. Judge Field said that a civil wrong ought not to be used in a
criminal case.
Arobieke [1988]: Victim was sat on a train. Out of the window he saw
the defendant on the platform and thought that he was looking for him and
decided to jump off the train and run across the railway lines. He was killed.
The defendant was charged with unlawful act manslaughter. He was found not
guilty as he had not made any threats to the victim, it was all in the victim’s
own mind.
Rogers [2003]: The defendant participated in the injection of the
drug to the victim. By applying a tourniquet to the victim. The accused help to
apply the bandage but the victim himself injected the drug. Therefore breaking
the chain of causation. The court of appeal wanted to convict on the basis of
being involved. This has been overruled by
the Supreme Court.
R v Khan and Khan [1998]: Defendants supplied drugs to the
victim and delivered them to the victim’s flat, she took the drugs and her body
rejected them, she was writhing on the bed in pain. The defendants left her and
she died. The prosecution argued that the defendants owed a duty of care to the
victim by the fact that they had supplied the drugs. Held, the act was unlawful
but the supply was not a dangerous act, the injection was the dangerous part.
Scarlett [1993]: The appellant was a publican. He ejected a drunken
customer from his pub. The customer fell, hit his head and died. The appellant
was convicted of manslaughter and appealed. Held, Appeal allowed his conviction
quashed. There was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the appellant had
used excessive force and thus no unlawful act had been established.
Dias [2002]:
Held, Appeal allowed. The appellant's conviction for manslaughter was quashed.
The Court of Appeal decision in R v Kennedy 1999 was
wrong to state that self-injection of heroin was an unlawful act. Whilst
possession of the heroin was an unlawful act there was no direct causation. The
jury had not been directed on the issue of causation therefore the conviction
was unsafe. In any event it is likely in most cases that the freely informed
decision, by an adult of sound mind to self-inject drugs, would amount to a novus actus interveniens breaking
the chain of causation.
Slingsby
[1995]: D had sexual intercourse with V,
with her consent. Also with V's consent, he inserted his fist into her vagina,
but his signet ring caused her internal injuries, which neither of them
realised at the time but from which from which V eventually died. Held, V had consented to D's doing
what he did, and there was no evidence that either of them had contemplated
actual bodily harm resulting, so there was no unlawful act on which to found a
prosecution.
Re A [2005]: Conjoined twins. Drs went to court
to decide if they could separate them when it was inevitable that one would
die. One of the twins were parasitic to the other. The motive was to save one.
Held the motive was irrelevant.
R
v Kennedy No 2 [2007]: The appellant prepared a solution
of heroin filled a syringe and handed it to Mr Bosque, a fellow resident at a
hostel. Bosque injected himself and died. The appellant was convicted of
supplying a class A drug and constructive manslaughter. Two appeals to the
Court of Appeal were unsuccessful. Held, the appeal was allowed and the
appellant's conviction for manslaughter quashed.
The unlawful
act must be dangerous, it must be an act that causes physical harm and it must
be intended.
Dawson [1985]: Three defendants attempted to rob a petrol station. They wore
masks and were armed with a pickaxe handle and replica guns. The petrol
attendant was aged 60 and suffered from heart disease. After the attendant
sounded the alarm the defendants fled empty handed. The attendant then suffered
a fatal heart attack. The trial judge directed the jury that they must decide whether
the actions of the defendant were dangerous by looking at the actions form the
point of view of a reasonable man who knew all the facts that they know. The
defendants were convicted of manslaughter and appealed. Held, the convictions
were quashed. The jury were aware of the attendant's heart condition whereas a
reasonable person present at the time of the attack would not have known this.
The direction to the jury was therefore a misdirection leaving the convictions
unsafe.
Church [1966]: Sylvia Notts mocked the appellant's ability to
satisfy her sexually and slapped his face. A fight developed during which the
appellant knocked her unconscious. He tried to wake her for 30 mins to no
avail. He believed she was dead and threw her body into a river. Medical
evidence revealed that the cause of death was drowning and she therefore had
been alive when he threw her into the river. The trial judge made several
errors in his direction to the jury and in the event they convicted of
manslaughter rather than murder. The appellant appealed on the grounds of
misdirection. Held, whilst there were several errors in the judge's direction
the conviction for manslaughter was safe.
Larkin
[1943]: The appellant waved a razor about intending to frighten his mistress's
lover. He claimed his mistress, who was drunk, blundered against the razor and
was killed when it cut her throat. Held, Conviction upheld. An unlawful act had
been committed consisting of the assault against the mistress's lover. This was
a dangerous act in that it was one which a sober and reasonable person would
regard as dangerous.
Watson
[1989]: The appellant smashed a window
and broke into the house of an 87 year old man, Harold Moyler. Moyler went to
investigate and the appellant shouted abuse at him and ran off. The police
arrived and Moyler suffered a heart attack and died 90 minutes after the
initial break in. Held, his conviction was quashed as it could not be
established that the break in was the cause of the heart attack. However, the
Court of Appeal held that a sober and reasonable person would regard the act of
the appellant as dangerous as they would have known of the age and frail
condition of the victim.
Carey [2006]: Three 15 year olds went out for an early evening walk. They came across
the three appellants who had been drinking. The appellants started making fun
of the girls and then became physically violent. V had her head pulled back and
was punched in the face. Two passing motorcyclists stopped and shouted at the
appellants and they ran off. V then ran off. She ran just over 100 metres but
then unfortunately she collapsed and died. It transpired that she had a
severely diseased heart and the run had induced a ventricular fibrillation
which resulted in her death. Held, the manslaughter convictions were quashed.
The physical assault on V was not the cause of death. The cause of death was
Aimee running away in fear, however, this was not act which the hypothetical
sober and reasonable person would regard as subjecting Aimee to some physical harm.
Dhaliwal
[2006]: Three 15 year olds went out for an early evening walk.
They came across the three appellants who had been drinking. The appellants
started making fun of the girls and then became physically violent. V had her
head pulled back and was punched in the face. Two passing motorcyclists stopped
and shouted at the appellants and they ran off. V then ran off. She ran just
over 100 metres but then unfortunately she collapsed and died. It transpired
that she had a severely diseased heart and the run had induced a ventricular
fibrillation which resulted in her death. Held, the manslaughter convictions
were quashed. The physical assault on V was not the cause of death. The cause
of death was Aimee running away in fear, however, this was not act which the
hypothetical sober and reasonable person would regard as subjecting Aimee to
some physical harm.
Ball [1989]: The appellant was involved in a dispute with a neighbour over her
parking her car on his land. The neighbour’s car then disappeared and she and
two men went to the appellant's house to question him about it. Things got out
of hand and the appellant went and grabbed his shot gun and what he believed to
be blank cartridges. He fired a shot at her intending to frighten her. In fact
the cartridge was live and she died from her injury. He was convicted of
manslaughter and appealed on the basis that the jury should have been directed
that his mistaken belief that the cartridges were blank should be taken into
account in assessing whether the sober and reasonable man would have regarded
his actions as dangerous. Held, the appeal was dismissed.
The
defendant must be the substantial cause of death. The defendant does not have
to be the sole cause but it must be more than trivial. The defendant must have the
mens rea for the unlawful act, not the harm caused.
Dalby [1982]: The appellant had supplied Stefan O'Such, with
Diconal tablets. Both had injected themselves with the tablets in solution.
They then went to a discotheque where they parted company. O'Such subsequently
met a friend who helped him on two occasions to administer intravenous
injections of an unspecified substance to himself. O'Such then returned home to
his flat where he fell asleep on the sofa. An attempt to wake him the next day
was unsuccessful. Dalby was prosecuted for manslaughter and convicted on the
basis that his supply of the Diconal tablets was an unlawful and dangerous act
which caused the death of O'Such.Held, his conviction for manslaughter was
quashed. The supply of drugs was not the cause of death. It was the deceased's
act of injecting himself which was the direct cause of death.
Mitchell [1983]: The appellant tried to jump the queue at a Post
Office. An elderly man took issue with the appellant's behaviour and challenged
him. The appellant hit the old man and pushed him. The man fell back onto
others in the queue including an elderly lady who fell and broke her leg. She
later died. The appellant was convicted of manslaughter and appealed contending
that the unlawful act was not directed at the woman. Held, the appeal was
dismissed and the conviction was upheld. There was no requirement that the
unlawful act be directed at the victim.
Goodfellow [1986]: D wished to move from his council house but could
not, so he set fire to it as part of a scam. His wife, son and another woman
died. Held, D would be liable
for reckless manslaughter if D either was inadvertent as to the risk of injury
to others entailed in setting fire to the house in circumstances.
Pagett [1983]:
D armed with a shotgun and cartridges, shot
at police who were attempting to arrest him. D held a 16-year-old girl who was
pregnant by him as a shield.
The officers
returned fire and the girl was killed. The jury acquitted him of murder and
convicted him of manslaughter. Held,
His unlawful and dangerous act (directed against the police) was the cause of
G's death, and that was sufficient. [The police were subsequently found to have
been negligent, and had to pay civil compensation to G's family].
Shohid: Held it can be shown that the
actions of the defendant were not the only cause of death but one of the
causes.
Comments
Post a Comment