Involuntary Manslaughter

* Involuntary Manslaughter is the unlawful killing where a defendant does not have the intention to kill or cause GBH. 

* The maximum sentence for involuntary manslaughter is life

* There are two types of ivoluntary manslaughters:

1. Unlawful Act Manslaughter

2. Gross Negligence Manslaughter

Actus Reus: The actus reus of unlawful act manslaughter has three elements.

1. Defendant must commit an unlawful act

2. Act must be dangerous

3. Act must cause the death

* An unlawful act must be shown, a civil wrong is not enough seen in the case of (Frankin).

* The case of (Lamb) showed an act which was not unlawful. Held there was no assault because victim shared the joke, so no fear of violence was expressed. Defendant was guilty of manslaughter

* An omission is not enough for unlawful act manslaughter, this is shown in the case of (Lowe). Defendant wilfully neglected his baby son and was given a manslaughter charge as wilfully neglect was baswd on an omission so was insufficient

* The act must be dangerous on the objective test

* This was shown in the case of Church

*  Church stated 'a sober and reasonable person would have forseen the harm, not necessarily the defendant. The risk also needs only to be some harm not serious harm.'

* It does not matter if the victim wasnt the person the unlawful act was aimed at. Seen in the cases of Larkin & Mitchell.

* Mitchell = Defendant has committed an unlawful act, which was danegrous so was convicted of manslaughter

* Larkin = Committed assault, against another, which was dangerous

* The unlawful act may be aimed at property

* This was shown in the case of (GoodFellow)

*Defendant deliberately set fire to his council flat, in order to be given an alternative, three people died. Court upheld conviction for manslaughter.

* The risk of harm must be physical.

* This is shown in the case of Dawson

* COA held that emotional disturbance is insufficient to amount to harm,

However....

Watson = If  a reasonable person was aware of the victims frality and increased the risk of physical harm, so defendant was liable. 

* The unlawful act must be the substantial cause of death. The general rules of causation apply.

* Factual Causation = where the consequence would not have happened 'but for' the defendants actions (Pagett) (White)

 Legal Causation = There can be more than one act contributing to the consequence but defendant is still liable, if there actions were more than a minimal cause (Kimsey)

There are no intervening acts which break the chain of causation. The chain of causation can be broken by:

1. The act of a third party.  2. Victims own act (Roberts) (Williams)  3. Natural/Unpredictable event

* (Corion Auguiste) = Defendants act was the direct and substantial cayse, so dedendant was liable

* (Kennedy) = Victim voluntarily injected which was an intervening act which broke the chain

*(Shohid) = Origional attacker was the serious cause of death

* It must be proved that the defendant had the mens rea for the unlawful act.

(Newsbury & Jones) = defendant intentionally did an act which was unlawful and dangerous and that act caused death

(Le Brun) = confirms the mens rea