Involuntary Manslaughter

Killing by doing an act which is both 'unlawful' and 'dangerous'

1) An unlawful act      

i) an omission is not sufficient - Lowe

ii) must be a crime not a mere tort - Franklin

iii) the act can be an non fatal offence, criminal damage, arson, burglary, robbery or the misuse of drugs act - Lamb, R v D, Goodfellow, Watson, Dawson, Kennedy

2) The act must be dangerous (Reasonable man/Objective Test)

i) Sober and reasonable person test - Church

ii) Reasonable person has the same knowledge as D - Dawson

iii) Obvious to reasonable observer - Watson/Carey

iv) Dangerousness decided by reasonable person - Ball 

3) The act must have caused the death

i) Factual causation 'but for' test - White/Pagett

ii) Legal causation: operating and substantial cause Smith/Jordan, novus actus interveniens Roberts, thin skull rule Blaue

iii) Unlawful act must cause the death i.e there must be a causal link Watson/Kennedy/Carey/Johnstone

It is simply that of the crime constituting the unlawful act which may be intention or recklessness depending on the definition of the particular offence (Lamb)

N.B There is no mens rea if it is a strict liability offence (Andrews)

Adomako

The requirements for GNM are:  

1) The existence of a duty of care

2) The breach of that duty causing death  

3) Gross negligence which the jury considers justifies a criminal conviction

1) GNM can be committed by an act or an omission 

i) An act Prentice 

ii) An omission Khan & Khan  

iii) An act or an omission Adomako

2) D must owe a duty of care to V 

i) A criminal duty (relates to omissions only and the 5 duties to act) Evans 

ii) A civil duty of care - tort (relates to act and omissions) Adomako/Donoghue v Stevenson/Caparo/Singh

(Civil or Criminal? Adomako/Wacker/Willoughby)

3) Breach of Duty of Care        

i) Was the duty breached by an act or omission? Nettleship v Weston/Bolam

ii) The breach must have created an obvious risk of death Misra

4) It must have caused the victims death

i) Factual causation 'but for' test - White/Pagett

ii) Legal causation: operating and substantial cause Smith/Jordan, novus actus interveniens Roberts, thin skull rule Blaue    

The mens rea is GROSS NEGLIGENCE (Adomako), an objective test where the standard is;

"what would the sober and reasonable person have done?"

The negligence must be 'so bad in all the circumstances' to amount to negligence. D must have had 'criminal disregard for others safety' or 'the grossest ignorance or the most criminal inattention'.

The mens rea can cover both objective and subjective criteria Lidar

'such as all sober and reasonable people would inevitably recognise must subject the other person to, at least, the risk of some harm resulting there from, albeit not serious harm'

(1)

The requirements for GNM are:  

1) The existence of a duty of care

2) The breach of that duty causing death  

3) Gross negligence which the jury considers justifies a criminal conviction

(2)

Gross negligence is that which the jury considers justifies a criminal conviction. Having regard to the risk of death involved was the conduct of D so bad as to amount to a criminal act or omission

'In order to establish criminal liability, the facts must be such that in the opinion of the jury, the negligence went beyond a mere matter of compensation between the 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'