Unlawful Act Manslaughter

Unlawful Act Manslaughter

1. Unlawful act

   • Franklin (1883)
     • A civil wrong is not enough - there must be a criminal offence.
   • Lamb (1967)
     • The defendant and victim were playing with a revolver. Neither thought the gun would fire when a bullet was not opposite the barrel. D accidentally shot V, killing him.
       • There was no unlawful act - the victim did not fear violence, so there was no assault.
   • Khan and Khan (1998)
     • The defendants supplied a young prostitute with heroin, knowing that she was a new user. She went into a coma, and the defendants left the flat. When they returned the next day, she was dead.
       • The omission of not getting help was not enough for unlawful act manslaughter.

2. Dangerous act

   • Church (1966)
     • "The unlawful act must be such as all sober and reasonable people would inevitably recognise the act would subject the other person to at least some harm" - Edmund Davies LJ
   • Larkin (1943)
     • D threatened another man with a razor to frighten him. The mistress of the other man tried to intervene, but because she was drunk, fell and landed on the blade, cutting her throat and killing her.
       • The act of threatening the man with a razor was unlawful and dangerous - some harm was likely to be caused as a result.
   • Goodfellow (1986)
     • D set fire to his house so the council would rehouse him. The fire spread, killing three people.
       • The act can be aimed at property as well as people.
   • Dawson (1985)
     • The three defendants attempted to rob a petrol station. The station attendant had a heart attack as a result and died.
       • The risk of harm includes causing a person to suffer shock,but not mere emotional disturbance.

3. Act must cause death

   • Corion-Auguiste (2004)
     • D threw a firework into a crowded, enclosed bus station causing people to rush for the exits. In the panic, an elderly woman hit her head and died.
       • D's act was a "direct and substantial" cause of the death.
   • Cato (1976)
     • D and V prepared a mix of heroin and water, which they both injected into each other.V died as a result.
       • "Administering a noxious substance" was the direct cause of death.
   • Kennedy (2007)
     • D prepared a syringe for V to inject himself with. V injected himself and died.
       • V's act of injecting himself broke the chain of causation.
   • Shohid (2003)
     • D was part of a group of men who pushed V onto a railway track. V was prevented from climbing back onto the platform by the group of men, not including D. He was killed by a train.
       • Even though the original act of D was not the sole cause of death, or even a main one, it was significantly serious to be the legal cause.

4. Mens rea for unlawful act

   • Newbury and Jones (1976)
     • Two teenage boys pushed a paving slab off of a railway bridge as a train approached. It hit a window and killed the guard.
       • It did not matter that D did not foresee that his act may cause harm to another or know that his act was unlawful.
       • D must have realised what he was doing and had the intention of doing it. The risk must have been obvious to a reasonable adult of normal intelligence, but not necessarily to D.