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.