Essay
BTEC Law Unit 4 P3, M3 (Manslaughter)
- Institution
- Canterbury College (CC)
pass and merit task for unit 4 applied law btec level 3 second year
[Show more]
4 reviews
By: aadamhussain • 3 year ago
By: allygatorxd • 6 year ago
By: lykotony123 • 6 year ago
By: jackjacobs42 • 7 year ago
Content preview
Holly Lawton Law Unit 4 P3 M3Unit 4 P3 Involuntary Manslaughter
Unlawful Act Manslaughter
This is also known as constructive manslaughter because the liability for the
death is built up or constructed from the facts that the defendant has done a
dangerous unlawful act which caused the death. This makes the defendant liable,
even though he did not realise that death or injury might occur. The elements of
unlawful act manslaughter are:
The defendant must do an unlawful act
The act must be dangerous on an objective test
The act must cause the death
The defendant must have the required mens rea for the unlawful act.
Unlawful act – The death must be caused by an unlawful act which must be a
criminal offence. A civil wrong (tort) is not enough. In Franklin 1883 the
defendant threw a large box into the sea from the West Pier at Brighton. The box
hit and killed a swimmer. It was held that a civil wrong was not enough to create
liability for an unlawful act manslaughter. Another case illustrating that there
must be a criminal unlawful act is Lamb 1967.
In many cases the unlawful act will be some kind of assault, but any criminal
offence can form the unlawful act, provided it also involves an act which is
dangerous in the sense that it is likely to cause some injury. Examples of the
offences which have led to a finding of an unlawful act manslaughter include
arson, criminal damage and burglary.
Omission is not enough, there must be an act. An omission cannot create liability
for an unlawful act manslaughter. In Lowe 1973 the defendant was convicted of
wilfully neglecting his baby son and of his manslaughter. The trial judge had
directed the jury that if they found the defendant guilty of wilful neglect, he was
also guilty of manslaughter. The Court of Appeal quashed the conviction for
manslaughter because the finding of wilful neglect involved a failure to act and
this could not support a conviction for unlawful act manslaughter. In Khan and
Khan 1998 the Court of Appeal again pointed out that an omission was not
sufficient to convict the defendants of unlawful act manslaughter.
Dangerous Act – The unlawful act must be dangerous on an objective test. In
Church 1966 it was held that it must be: “such as all sober and reasonable
people would inevitably recognise must subject the other person, at least, the
risk of some harm resulting therefrom, albeit not serious harm”. From this it can
be seen that the risk need only be of ‘some harm’. The harm need not be
serious. If a sober and reasonable person realises that the unlawful act might
cause some injury, then this part of the tests for unlawful act manslaughter is
satisfied. It does not matter that the defendant did not realise there was any risk
of harm to the other person. The case of Larkin 1943 illustrates both the need for
an unlawful act and for there to be, on an objective viewpoint, the risk of some
harm.
, Holly Lawton Law Unit 4 P3 M3
The act need not be aimed at the victim. In Mitchell 1983 the defendant’s
unlawful act was punching the old man. This act was dangerous on an objective
test because it was likely to cause some harm to another person. Finally the act
inadvertently caused the death of the woman, so all the elements put by
Humphries in Larkin are present. The defendant is guilty of unlawful act
manslaughter despite the fact that in each case the person threatened (or
punched) was not the one who died.
Some harm – It is not necessary for the sober and reasonable person to foresee
the particular type of harm that the victim suffers. It is enough that the sober
and reasonable person would foresee some harm. This was stated in JM and SM
2012. The act need not be aimed at a person; it can be aimed at property,
provided it is ‘such that all sober and reasonable people would inevitably
recognise must subject another person to, at least, the risk of some harm.’ This
is illustrated by Goodfellow 1986.
Act against property – Burglary is an unlawful act which is not normally
dangerous under the Church definition with a risk of some harm resulting
therefrom. However, a burglary may be carried out in such a way that the
circumstances of the commission of the offence make it dangerous. This was the
situation in Bristow, Dunn and Delay 2013. The risk of harm includes causing a
person to suffer shock. However, mere ‘emotional disturbance’ is not sufficient.
This was decided in Dawson 1985. There was also the problem in Dawson of
whether a sober and reasonable person would have foreseen the risk of harm
(shock) to the petrol station attendant.
However, where a reasonable person would be aware of the victim’s frailty and
the risk of physical harm to him, then the defendant will be liable. This was
stated in Watson 1989 where the two defendants threw a brick through the
window of a house and broke into it, intending to steal property. The occupier
was a frail 87 year old man who heard the noise and came to investigate what
happened. The two defendants physically abused him and then left. The man
died of a heart attack 90 minutes later. Although the Court of Appeal quashed
the convictions for manslaughter, the court stated that the act of burglary could
be ‘dangerous’ in that it became dangerous as soon as the old man’s condition
would have been apparent to the reasonable man.
Causing death – The unlawful act must cause the death. The rules on causation
are the same as for murder. An important point is that if there is an intervening
act which breaks the chain of causation then the defendant cannot be liable for
the manslaughter. This point has caused problems in cases where the defendant
has supplied V (the victim) with an illegal drug. If the defendant also injects the
drug into V then there is no break in the chain of causation. This was shown in
the case of Cato 1976.
The problem has been with situations where the defendant has prepared the
injection, handed the syringe to V, and V has then injected himself. There have
been several cases on this. There are two points at issue, these are:
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller dappermouse. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for £3.49. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
52928 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy revision notes and other study material for 14 years now