Homicide either murder or manslaughter. Homicide is not a crime but description.

Involuntary - no mens rea for murder.

LECTURE TOPIC 6
HOMICIDE – INVOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER

Gavin: Deconstructing unlawful act manslaughter [2017] J Crim L 112

Freer: Putting the brakes on unlawful act manslaughter [2018] Crim LR 612
Lodge: Gross negligence manslaughter on the cusp [2017] J Crim L 125
Crosby: Gross negligence manslaughter by omission [2018] J Crim L 127

Max manslaughter case: life sentence. (same as murder) worst case scenario.
Murder = life sentence automatically, judge has no discretion.

If someone is not guilty of murder – might be guilty of manslaughter.

Murder: unlawfully killing a human being, with the intention to kill or the
intention to do GBH.
- AR: Death must be caused by the defendant’s acts, or (if there is a duty to
act) omissions.
- MR: Can be direct intention (aim or purpose was to kill or seriously injure a
human being) or oblique intention (virtually certain to cause death/serious
injury, and D knew it was virtually certain).

Involuntary manslaughter: same AR as murder, but with a lower level of criminal

culpability.
Voluntary manslaughter: same AR as murder AND same MR, BUT with a ‘partial
defence’, reducing from murder (life sentence) to manslaughter.

1. ACTUS REUS
Start by proving that a human being is dead and the D’s conduct caused it by an
act/omission. But for d’s acts/omission v wouldn’t have died. No break in chain of
causation.
As for murder (although note requirement for an unlawful act in respect of
constructive manslaughter, below)

Conduct causing the death of a human being under the queen’s peace.

2. MENS REA

1
a. Intending to do an act which is both unlawful and dangerous (constructive
manslaughter)i.e a crime = AR+MR which is objectively dangerous.- u
committed unlawful act (crime) crime was objectively dangerous. Reasonable
person would realise it is dangerous.
b. Recklessness (very rarely used) (realising a highly probable? Risk of death or
GBH) subjectively aware of a risk. Use a + c a lot more tho.
c. Gross negligence (one of the rare situations where criminal liability for
serious crime is based on a form of negligence) (Respect of a serious and
obvious risk of death) if ur doing something legal and cause someones death
BUT GROSSLY NEGLIGENT. i.e. operating machinery and kills someone.

a) CONSTRUCTIVE MANSLAUGHTER (unlawful and

dangerous act: UDA)
AG Reference (No 3 of 1994) [1988] AC 245
 Stabbing pregnant woman, transferred malice. Not murder. Bf aim/purpose to
cause serious injury to mother. Court didn’t wanna transfer that to the fetus to
the baby once it was born. Double transfer stretching liability. BUT
manslaughter. Bc acting criminally, as result someone has died therefore
constructive manslaughter. CAN’T BE LIABLE FOR CONSTRUCTIVE
MANSLAUGHTER ON AN OMISSION BC HAS TO BE AN ACT.
: The three elements to the crime are:
 Fault element - An unlawful act (which D intended to commit)
 Fault element - The unlawful act is dangerous
 Actus reus - The unlawful and dangerous act must cause V’s death

D committed an unlawful act (AR+MR) -> D intended to do the act -> the act is
objectively (REASONABLE PERSON) dangerous -> the unlawful act caused the
death.

 Intending to do an unlawful act

Lowe [1973] 1 All ER 805 – NO INTENTIONAL ACT. Manslaughter in relation to

death of child by failing to summon medical assistance. IT IS UNLAWFUL,
DANGEROUS BUT NOT AN ACT. No intentional act. Merely omitted to do an
act. GROSS NEGLIGENCE INSTEAD.

Lamb [1967] 2 All ER 1282: D fired a loaded gun at V as a joke. Neither realised
that a bullet would be fired from the gun but it was and V died. Can see there was a
bullet but wasn’t next to firing pin. Way the revolver designer, bullet moves then fires
but they didn’t realise that. So didn’t realise it was gonna move then fire. NO AR+MR
OF CRIME. He has caused death. AR is there. MR – no intention to cause harm/kill
not murder. Not an assault bc victim didn’t expect the gun to fire. V not apprehending
2
immediate unlawful application of force. NOT MANSLAUGHTER. COULD consider
grossly negligent by playing around with a gun.

Slingsby [1995] Crim LR 570

Offence involving fisting. Death caused by fisting. Not unlawful if there is consent.
NO AR OF A CRIME.

Dhaliwal [2006] EWCA Crim 1139

NO AR OF CRIME. Woman victim of abuse. D committed various crimes long
period. Eventually kills herself. Has D caused death as result of unlawful and
dangerous act? Could argue suicide is a voluntarily act that breaks chain of
causation. BUT if suicide direct and foreseeable result of his actions then can argue
his pattern of his abuse over long period caused/contributed to her suicide. Wasn’t
committing suicide bc of act but pattern of abuse. Court said couldn’t establish she
was suffering from GBH as result of prior conduct. No identified psychiatric condition
she is now suffering from as result of his earlier acts triggering suicide.

U don’t have to intend that she kill herself but if u did intend them to kill
themselves. Then murder.

DPP V Newbury [1976] 2 All ER 365: Ds pushed a paving stone onto a train,
intending damage. It went through a window, killing V. crime caused. Issue: does it
matter the type of crime? 2 boys throwing paving slab onto train. Not attacking
person/trying to cause harm to person. Not murder. Someone dies. CRIMINAL
DAMAGE. At time wasn’t clear if criminal damage was enough. But newbury court
said it was. Unlawful and dangerous act of criminal damage, intentionally and an
reasonable person would have realised the danger. Constructive manslaughter.

Goodfellow (1986) 83 Cr App R 23: D set fire to a house causing 3 deaths.

CRIMINAL DAMAGE. – ARSON. Someone wants rehousing so burnt down old
house. Deliberately causing damage to house property belonging to another.
Members of extender family 2 ppl get killed in fire. No intention to cause
death/serious injury. Too stupid to realise. No mens rea for murder.

AG Reference (No 3 of 1994) [1988] AC 245

 A dangerous act – objective test

Church [1966] 1 QB 59 “the unlawful act must be such that all sober and
reasonable people would inevitable recognize must subject the other person to,
at least, the risk of some harm resulting therefrom, albeit it not serious harm.” No
about if D recognized danger.

3
Dawson (1985) 81 Cr App R 150: Defendants caused the death of a garage
attendant by banging a gun on the counter in the course of a robbery. The victim
had a weak heart and died from a heart attack. – “on the basis of the knowledge
gained by a sober and reasonable man as though he were present..”
 Does not cover just fear
 Does cover injury caused by shock emanating from fear
 Reasonable person must foresee physical harm

Not sufficient.

Carey [2006] Crim LR 842: The 15 yr old victim had a heart attack and died from
shock induced by D’s aggressive behaviour (affray) caused to have heart attack and
die. Assault taken place involving other people. She afraid, tries to run away has a
heart attack and dies. Would reasonable observer think there was a risk of
reasonable harm to the 15 yr old girl who was present but not involved in the fight. U
don’t expect young people to suffer serious health issues resulting from
shock. MR – THIN SKULL RULE DOESN’T APPLY. REASONABLE PERSON
ONLY. AR – TAKE VICTIM AS U FIND THEM THIN SKULL RULE WOULD
APPLY.

Watson [1989] 2 All ER 865 – AN 87 year old man w serious heart condition
had a heart attack an died after D burgled his house whilst he was at home.
Contrast with carey

Ball [1989] Crim LR 730 – d killed v by shooting him w a gun that he thought he
had loaded w blank cartridges. NO INTENTION. Think its gonna be blank. Crime
is ASSAULT. BC VICTIM THOUGHT GUN WAS LOADED.

R v M (J) and another [2012] EWCA Crim 2293: Although the reasonable person
must realise a risk of some physical harm, it is not necessary to show that s/he
would realise a risk of the type of physical harm that actually causes the death
A doorman at club had undiagnosed aneurysm which ruptured due to shock
following assault and affray at the club. Method which person died wasn’t what
reasonable person would have predicted. But enough reasonable person
could predict some harm.

 The unlawful and dangerous act causes the death

Dhaliwal 2006 :
Assault – psychological damage + suicide = death – would be enough
No evidence she suffered psychiatric harm other than suicide. Not enough.
w/out psychological harm doesn’t work.

Cato [1976] 1 All ER 260 – 2 heroin addicts. One administers to other. Dies of
overdose. Consensually administer heroin to other. Does that make u guilty of

4
manslaughter, no intention of death/serious injury. Unlawful and dangerous act,
causing death. Intentionally. Reasonable person would foresee death. Also refer to
possession of heroin as unlawful. But that didn’t cause death. Just the
administrating.

Kennedy [2007] UKHL 38

If u supply someone w heroin and then they inject themselves and die. Clearly
unlawful and dangerous. Yes committed crime, but immediate cause of death is V’s
actions. Could argue manslaughter on the failure to seek medical assistance.

b) RECKLESSNESS
person doesn’t need to know there is a risk. But obvious from a reasonable observer.
Must shower they intended to do the act and they have the mens rea. E.g. I intended
to carry out an act of assault. Unlawful crime. Reasonable person would believe
there is a risk it may cause serious harm/death.

Realising a risk of death/GBH and deliberately running that risk - a subjective test:
Lidar [2000] (unreported)
Running a significant (highly probable) risk of death or GBH
Realising/foreseeing that the risk might arise (subjective test)

c) GROSS NEGLIGENCE

Grossly unreasonable behaviour - objective test

Antitheist – keep patient unconscious and alive during surgery. They give them
anaesthetic but they are supposed to be monitoring their breathing etc during the
operation. Breathing tube knocked out during operation. Reasonable antitheist would
realise this and fix it but did not. would’ve realised w/in 15 seconds however didn’t
realise for 15 mins. Patient suffered loss of oxygen to brain and died.

Can be act or omission. U have duty to care for ur patient. The doctors failure to see
mistake was an omission.

Adomako [1994] 3 All ER 79: The four elements are that:

5
 (1) D owed a duty of care towards V
(2) D breached the duty
(3) The breach caused V’s death
(4) The breach (negligence) was so gross as to amount to a crime

DUTY OF CARE: Reasonable foreseeability – question of law

BREACH: D failed to behave like a reasonable person (antithedist)
CAUSATION: The death is linked to the breach
GROSS NEGLIGENCE:
1. High risk of death. 2. Serious breach - question for the jury. Breach is gross.

Singh [1999] Crim LR 582: The defendant helped his father run a lodging house.
He regularly visited the house, collected rent and maintained the premises. He did
nothing to follow up complaints about a defective gas fire other than to inspect it
himself. A lodger died of carbon monoxide poisoning from the fire. The defendant,
his father and the gas fitter were all convicted of manslaughter. DUC TO TENANTS,
BREACH OF DUTY, BREACH CAUSED DEATH, CONVICTED BC CONSIDERED
GROSS NEGLIGENCE.

Rose [2017] EWCA Crim 1168 – Optometrist – eye exam on 7year old, medical
condition life threatening 7yr old had. This should have been detected in eye exam.
Eventually dies. – has a duty of care, has breached duty, BUT that risk of death was
not sufficiently serious/obvious to render it gross.

Evans [2009] EWCA Crim 650: The defendant supplied her half-sister with heroin
which she injected. She then began to exhibit signs of an overdose but the
defendant (and her mother) did not call medical assistance. The victim died from
heroin poisoning. GROSS NEGLIGENCE is once the person has started showing
symptoms of an overdose, nobody sought medical assistance. WAS A DUTY. Not
just cos half-sister, but they supplied the drugs.

On relevance of D’s subjective state of mind see R v DPP ex p Jones [2000] IRLR
373 building site, something goes wrong and causes death. don’t prosecute bc they
said the operators of the machinery didn’t realise there was a risk. On judicial review,
it doesn’t matter they didn’t realise there was a risk. Not subjective recklessness. In
Adomako doctor would be intervened had he known there was a risk. So subjective
recklessness to required. Adomako convicted regardless. Must be an obvious and
important matter which it was the D’s duty to address.

R (On application of Rowley) V DPP [2003] EWHC 693.

On the difference between civil and criminal law see Wacker [2002] EWCA 1944
and Willoughby [2004] EWCA Crim 3365

On the degree of risk for gross negligence manslaughter see Misra & Srivastava
[2004] EWCA Crim 2375 – it’s a crime bc jury think its bad enough to be a crime.
Danger of vagueness and uncertainty in the law. compatible w human rights law

6
despite element of uncertainty (also deals with whether gross negligence
manslaughter breaches Art 7 ECHR)

Zaman [2017] EWCA Crim 1783

Kuddus & Rashid [2018] 11 WLUK 124

Both restaurant allergy cases.