Involuntary Manslaughter

1
Involuntary Manslaughter

• Gross Negligence Manslaughter

2
Involuntary manslaughter
Actus reus
Involuntary manslaughter has the same actus reus
as murder (unlawful killing) but a different mens
rea. Murder requires an intention to kill or to
cause grievous bodily harm, whereas involuntary
manslaughter does not state what the required
mens rea is, just that it is something other than
the intention to kill or to cause grievous bodily
harm.
3
Involuntary manslaughter
Voluntary and involuntary manslaughter
In cases of voluntary manslaughter, the defendant
commits murder but has one of the three partial
defences contained in the Homicide Act 1957.
Involuntary manslaughter is a separate crime.
4
Involuntary manslaughter
Types of involuntary manslaughter

• There are two types of involuntary manslaughter
• constructive manslaughter (unlawful and
  dangerous act)
• gross negligence manslaughter

5
Involuntary manslaughter
Comparing types of involuntary manslaughter

• Constructive manslaughter is also known as
  unlawful and dangerous act manslaughter.
• Gross negligence manslaughter is based on the
  rules of civil negligence, with the extra
  requirement of risk of death. It was established
  in the case of R v Adomako (1994).

6
Involuntary manslaughter gross negligence
Gross negligence manslaughter
7

• Gross negligence manslaughter is when a person
  dies as a result of the negligence of another,
  and the degree of negligence by the defendant is
  sufficiently serious as to make him criminally
  liable for the death.
• Bateman (1925) gross negligence by the
  defendant can be the basis for criminal liability
  the test was does the conduct of the accused
  show such disregard for the life and safety of
  others as to amount to a crime against the state
  and conduct deserving of punishment?

8

• Andrews (1937) must be a very high level of
  negligence for crime of gross negligence
  manslaughter to be established Lord Atkin
• Who had 5 years earlier laid out the test for
  negligence in civil cases in Donoghue v Stevenson
  (1932)
• persons who are so closely and directly
  affected by my act that I ought reasonably to
  have them in contemplation as being so affected
  when I am directing my mind to the acts or
  omissions which are called into question.

9
Involuntary manslaughter gross negligence
Actus reus

• Gross negligence manslaughter was defined in the
  case of R v Adomako (1995). It requires
• a duty of care
• a breach of that duty that caused death
• a risk of death

10
The rules
11
Involuntary manslaughter gross negligence
Duty of care
A duty of care is established using the civil
neighbour principle from Donoghue v Stevenson
(1932). You owe a duty of care to persons so
closely and directly affected by my acts or
omissions. It is a question of law as to
whether the defendant owes a duty of care, and
therefore it is an issue for the judge to decide.
Since Caparo Industries v Dickman (1990), the
judge can establish the existence of a duty of
care incrementally and does not have to establish
one if it is against public policy to do so.
12
Involuntary manslaughter gross negligence
Breach of duty
In gross negligence manslaughter, there must also
be a breach of duty, which means that the
defendant has fallen below the standard of care
expected of the ordinary reasonable man. The
breach must also be serious. It is up to the jury
to consider whether the extent to which the
defendants conduct departed from the proper
standard of care incumbent upon him, involving as
it must have done a risk of death to the victim,
was such as it should be judged criminal (Lord
MacKay in R v Adomako, 1995).
13
Involuntary manslaughter gross negligence
Risk of death
In R v Litchfield (1998), the Court of Appeal
favoured the subjective test stating that the
defendant must have appreciated the risk he was
taking. A breach can also occur where there is a
contractual situation. In R v Singh (1999), the
trial judge directed the jury that The
circumstances must be such that a reasonably
prudent person would have foreseen a serious and
obvious risk not merely of injury or even serious
injury but of death. This suggests that the
risk of death requirement of gross negligence
manslaughter is now regarded as an objective
test. Duty of care owed by landlord towards
tenant.
14

• Wacker (2002) duty owed to one with whom the
  defendant is complicit in crime.

15
Gross Negligence

• Bateman (1925) and Andrews (1937) both stated
  that the degree of negligence amounting to
  manslaughter must be far greater than in a civil
  case.
• The jury must take into account all evidence and
  decide whether the breach of duty was serious
  enough to amount to gross negligence. They also
  have to decide with regard to the risk of death
  whether it amounted to a criminal act or
  omission. If so then a verdict of gross
  negligence manslaughter can be given.

16
Gross negligence

• What happened in Finlay (2001) and Edwards (2001)
  and Misra (2004)?

17
Involuntary manslaughter gross negligence
Mens rea
The mens rea of gross negligence manslaughter is
gross negligence. Lord MacKay referred to the
earlier case of R v Bateman (1925), in which Lord
Hewart CJ said In order to establish criminal
liability the facts must be such that, in the
opinion of the jury, the negligence of the
accused went beyond a mere matter of compensation
between subjects and showed such disregard for
the life and safety of others as to amount to a
crime against the state and conduct deserving
punishment. This is a subjective test.