RECAP: VOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER

1. Name the Act and section for DR AND for LC

2. What are the 3 elements of DR?
3. Give the Byrne definition of abnormality of mind.
4. Give an example of not knowing the nature of conduct.
5. Principle in Dietschmann?
6. What are the 3 elements of LC?
7. Why couldn’t Ahluwalia use the old defence of provocation?
8. What are the qualifying triggers?
9. Principle in Clinton?
10. Name the two cases on revenge.
 INVOLUNTARY Unlawful Act
MANSLAUGHTER:
Manslaughter
 • AR: Unlawfully • AR of murder: • AR of murder:
MURDER

VOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER

INVOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER
killing a unlawfully Unlawfully
reasonable killing a killing a
person in reasonable reasonable
being person in person in
being being
• MR: intention
to kill or cause • MR for murder • No MR for
GBH – intention to murder – no
kill or cause intention to
GBH kill or cause
GBH
• But has a
PARTIAL
defence of DR
or LC
4 ELEMENTS OF UNLAWFUL ACT
MANSLAUGHTER

1. The D must do an unlawful

act;
2. The act must be dangerous on
an objective level;
3. The act must cause the death;
4. The D must have the mens rea
of the original unlawful act.
 1. UNLAWFUL ACT

The death must be caused by an unlawful act

which must be a criminal offence.

R v Lowe (1973)
D was convicted of wilfully neglecting his baby
son and convicted of UAM.
The COA quashed the conviction because
omissions are not enough for UAM.
Lamb (1967)
Two boys were playing with a
revolver. There were two bullets in
the chamber but neither were
opposite the barrel. The two boys
believed that this meant it would not
fire. One of the boys pointed the gun
at the other and fired. As he pulled
the trigger the chamber turned and
the gun went off killing the other boy.
The boy was charged with unlawful
act manslaughter.
D cannot be guilty of UAM if there is
no unlawful act. Here, there was no
assault (no fear) so there was no
unlawful act.
2. DANGEROUS ACT
R v Larkin (1943)
D does not have to think the act is dangerous. If the
reasonable man would say there was a risk of some harm,
the act is dangerous.

Church (1966)
The test is whether a sober and reasonable person would
foresee the risk of their act.

R v JM and SM (2012)
It does not matter what form the harm takes, as long as
some harm is foreseeable.
R v Mitchell (1983)
Post office argument. D
punched a man causing
him to stagger backwards
into an 89 year old
woman. The woman was
knocked over, was injured
and died a few days later
from her injuries.
D was convicted of UAM.
The unlawful act does not
need to be aimed at the
V.
R v Goodfellow (1986)
D decided to set fire to his
council flat so that the
council would have to re-
home him. Unfortunately,
his wife, son and another
woman died in the fire.
The unlawful dangerous
act can be aimed at
property and not a person,
as long as a reasonable
man could foresee "some
harm".
 3. CAUSING DEATH
Johnstone (2007)
V was subjected to a series of
taunts which involved spitting;
shouting; and throwing stones
and wood. V suffered a heart
attack brought on by stress.
D could not be convicted of
UAM because it was not clear
whether it was the dangerous
act that brought on the heart
attack, and this caused the
death of V.
R v Cato (1976)
D and V each prepared a
syringe of heroin and water.
They then injected the other.
V died.
Where D injects the V, he can
be liable for UAM because he
has committed the unlawful
dangerous act of
‘administering a noxious
substance‘.
R v Kennedy (2007)
D filled a syringe and gave it to V, who
injected himself and died.
HOL held where V was a fully informed
and responsible adult, it was never
appropriate to find guilty of manslaughter
a person who had been involved in the
supply to the deceased of a Class A
controlled drug, which had then been
freely and voluntarily self-administered by
the deceased, and the administration of
the drug had caused his death.
HOL confirmed self-injection is a voluntary
intervening act which breaks the chain of
causation.
R v Evans (2009)
D supplied sister Carly with heroin.
Carly self injected and D failed to
call an ambulance. Carly died. D
was guilty of GNM.
If D supplies V with drugs and V
self-injects, this will break the
chain of causation, so it is not
UAM.
However, if D witnesses an
overdose and fails to summon
help, he has created a dangerous
situation, and this can be GNM.
MENS REA FOR THE UNLAWFUL ACT

R v Newbury and Jones (1976)

Ds were 2 teenage boys who
pushed a paving stone from a bridge
on to a railway line as a train was
approaching. The stone hit the train
and killed the guard.
Ds were convicted of UAM even
though they didn't realise their act
was unlawful and dangerous.
For UAM, D only needs to have the
MR for the initial unlawful act (not
for death).
 UAM SUMMARY
1. The D must do an unlawful act;
Lowe – omissions not enough
Lamb
2. The act must be dangerous on an objective level;
Larkin
Mitchell
SM and JM
Goodfellow
3. The act must cause the death;
Cato
Kennedy
Evans
4. The D must have the mens rea of the original unlawful
act.
Newbury and Jones
 UAM
Unlawful Act Manslaughter
4
requirements
1. D must do an unlawful act
Lowe  
Lamb  
2. The unlawful act must be objectively dangerous
Larkin  
Mitchell  
Dawson  
Watson  
Bristol, Dunn  
Goodfellow  
3. The unlawful act must cause death
Cato  
Kennedy  
Evans  
4. D must have the mens rea for the original unlawful act
Newbury and  
Jones
 RECAP QS
1. What are the 4 requirements for UAM?
2. Principle in Lowe?
3. Principle in Lamb?
4. Principle in Larkin?
5. Principle in Mitchell?
6. Principle in Goodfellow?
7. Principle in Newbury and Jones?
8. Principle in Cato?
9. Principle in Kennedy?
10.Principle in Evans?
 HOW TO APPLY UAM TO A SCENARIO
I - D (use their name) may be liable for UAM for the death of V (use their name).
D – Define the 4 elements of UAM
E - Explain each of the 4 elements with cases
 Unlawful act
 Objectively dangerous
 Caused death
 MR for the original unlawful act
A – Apply each element of UAM to D’s case.
 Have they done an unlawful act?
 Was it dangerous?
 Did it cause death?
 Did they have MR for the unlawful act?
UAM MINI-SCENARIO

Joe was playing hockey. He was

angry with Kate and struck her
hard on the leg with his hockey
stick. After the game, Kate’s leg
swelled up. A doctor said it was
fine, but Kate later died of a
blood clot which travelled from
her leg to her brain.
Discuss whether Joe is liable
for UAM.
 I –Joe might be liable for UAM in relation to Kate’s death (1)
 D –UAM has four requirements: unlawful act; objectively dangerous; caused death;
MR for original unlawful act. (1)
 E – There must be a completed criminal act (Lamb) (1)
 An omission is not enough (Lowe) (1)
 It must be objectively dangerous (Larkin) (1)
 It does not need to be aimed at the V – Mitchell (1)
 It can be aimed at property – Goodfellow (1)
 It must cause the death. The normal rules of causation apply. (1)
 This includes factual (White; Paggett) and legal (Kimsey; Blaue; Smith; Cheshire; Malcherek;
Jordan; Roberts; Williams and Davies). (1)
 Causation drugs cases (Cato; Kennedy; Evans)) (1)
 MR for the unlawful act – Newbery and Jones (1)
 A –Joe has done an unlawful act by hitting Kate with the hockey stick. (1)
 Hitting someone with a hockey stick is objectively dangerous – Larkin (1)
 The doctor says the leg is fine. This may have broken the chain of causation, however,
this is unlikely to be palpably wrong (Smith; Cheshire; Malcherek; Jordan) (1)
 Joe has the mens rea for the unlawful act – the battery (1)

 Therefore Joe liable for UAM (1)

UAM MINI-SCENARIO

Michelle bought heroin from a

drug dealer, Natalie. Natalie
prepared the syringe for
Michelle, and Michelle
injected herself with the drug.
Michelle collapsed, and
Natalie panicked and ran away.
Michelle died of an overdose.

Discuss whether Natalie is

liable for UAM
 ANSWER
 I –Natalie might be liable for unlawful act manslaughter in relation to Michelle’s death
(1)
 D –UAM has four requirements: unlawful act; objectively dangerous; caused death; MR
for original unlawful act. (1)
 E – There must be a completed criminal act (Lamb) (1)
 An omission is not enough (Lowe) (1)
 It must be objectively dangerous (Larkin; Church) (1)
 Acts may not be ‘dangerous’ if V’s vulnerability is not obvious – Dawson; Watson (1)
 It does not need to be aimed at the V – Mitchell (1)
 It can be aimed at property – Goodfellow (1)
 It must cause the death (Cato) (1)
 A voluntary act of V can break the chain (Kennedy) (1)
 If V breaks the chain, D can be liable in GNM through creating a dangerous situation and
failing to call for help (Evans) (1)
 A – Natalie has done an unlawful act by supplying heroin. (1)
 Supplying a Class A drug is objectively dangerous – Larkin (1)
 Michelle has self-injected, so this breaks the chain of causation (Kennedy) (1)
 Natalie cannot be liable for UAM, but she has created a dangerous situation, so will be
liable for GNM through failing to summon help (Evans). (1)
UAM AND GNM SCENARIO
Jin is in a supermarket queue. Jin watches Amy squeeze
into the queue ahead of him. Jin is angry and tries to
push Amy out of the queue. Amy loses her balance and
falls into an elderly couple, Fred and Wanda. Fred has a
heart condition and the shock causes him to have a
heart attack. Wanda falls; she suffers from brittle bone
disease and breaks her hip.
In hospital Fred is put on a life-support machine but
dies three hours later. Wanda recovers but before she
goes home Doctor Sugar gives her an antibiotic
injection. He is busy and does not check whether
Wanda has any allergies. Wanda has a massive allergic
reaction and dies.
Discuss the criminal liability, if any, of both Jin and
Doctor Sugar for the manslaughter of Fred and Wanda.
(25)
GUESS THE UAM CASE

25