Unlawful Act Manslaughter

• Also known as "Constructive Manslaughter" 
• D must have actively done something to contribute to V's death 
• D's act must be both an "unlawful criminal offence" (not a tort) and "dangerous" 
• An omission is not sufficient to make D liable for Constructive Manslaughter
• D may be guilty even if he did not realise that death or injury may occur as a result of his actions. To this extent, the need not be any foresight or consequences. 

• D must commit an "unlawful act" or criminal offence. A civil wrong (tort) or omission is not sufficient to make D liable for Constructive Manslaughter. 
• The act must be dangerous (on an objective test) 
• The act must cause V's death 
• D must have the required mens rea for the unlwaful act

Unlawful Act

The death must be caused by an unlawful act: 

Lamb (1967) D and V were fooling around with a revolver. Neither thought the gun would fire. D pointed gun at V. Gun went off and killed V. 

V's death must be caused by an unlawful act. D's act was not unlawful: not assault as V was not put in fear. 

An omission is not enough 

Lowe (1973) 

D neglected his baby son 

D convicted of willful neglect and manslaughter of his son. Court of Appeal overturned conviction as willful neglect involves an omission, and an omission is not sufficient to make D liable for the actus reus of Constructive Manslaughter

• D must commit an "unlawful act" or criminal offence. A civil wrong (tort) or omission is not sufficient to make D liable for Constructive Manslaughter. 
• The act must be dangerous (on an objective test) 
• The act must cause V's death 
• D must have the required mens rea for the unlwaful act

Unlawful Act

The death must be caused by an unlawful act: 

Lamb (1967) D and V were fooling around with a revolver. Neither thought the gun would fire. D pointed gun at V. Gun went off and killed V. 

V's death must be caused by an unlawful act. D's act was not unlawful: not assault as V was not put in fear. 

An omission is not enough 

Lowe (1973) 

D neglected his baby son 

D convicted of willful neglect and manslaughter of his son. Court of Appeal overturned conviction as willful neglect involves an omission, and an omission is not sufficient to make D liable for the actus reus of Constructive Manslaughter

Most cases of Constructive Manslaughter arise from assault, but not all: 

Goodfellow (1986) - arson 

D set fire to his flat so the council would give him a new one. Three people died in the fire. 

Newbury & Jones (1976) - Criminal Damage

Ds were two teenage boys who pushed a concrete slab off a bridge onto a railway line and killed a guard. 

Watson (1989) - Burglary 

D broke into V's house. The 87 year-old occupier came to see what the disturbance was. D attacked V, and V died of a heart attack moments later.

The act does not have to be directed at a person 

A Civil wrong (tort) is not sufficient: 

Franklin (1883) 

D threw a large box into the sea. V was hit by the box and died. 

A civil wrong is not enough to create liability for Constructive Manslaughter

Objective Test: The unlawful act must be found dangerous on an objective test 

"would a sober and reasonable person realise that the act could cause some harm to a person, albeit not serious harm?" 

Established in Church (1965) 

D knocked a prostitute unconscious. Believing she was dead he threw he "body" into a river where she drowned and died. 

The unlawful act must be one that a sober and reasonable person would recognise as putting V at risk of some harm. 

Some harm, not serious harm

Larkin (1943) 

D threatened another man with a razor. Man's mistress intervened, drunk, and fell on the razor and slashed her throat. 

If a reasonable man realises that there is a risk of some harm, the dangerousness test is satisfied. 

This case demonstrates that transferred malice applies in Constructive Manslaughter. 

Final Victim 

Mitchell (1983) 

Man pushed in front of D in queue. D pushed the man, who fell into V, an 89 year-old woman, who died from her injuries. 

The dangerous act need not be aimed at the final victim. 

Property 

Act does not need to be aimed at a person. An act aimed at property can still be that such a sober and reasonable person would realise a risk of some harm. 

Goodfellow (1986) 

The elements of Constructive Manslaughter can still be present in offences against property.

There must be some risk of physical harm, mere fear is not enough

Dawson (1985) 

3 Ds tried to rob a petrol station, armed with pickaxe handles. Petrol station attendant (who appeared young and fit) sounded alarm and robbers fled. V, who suffered from a serious heart condition, died from a heart attack 1 1/2 hours later. 

The act must be one that is likely to cause some harm in the eyes of a reasonable and sober person. 

However, where a reasonable person would be aware of V's frailty and risk of harm to him/her the D will be liable for constructive manslaughter. 

Watson (1989) 

Ds threw a brick through a window of a house to gain entry. The 87-year old occupier came to see what

the disturbance was. Ds attacked V and left him injured, where he died of a heart attack moments later.

The key discriminator between these two cases is in Dawson - the victim was aged 60, substantially younger than that

in Watson. Arguably, a reasonable man would not think that frightening a man of 60 would normally be expected to

cause harm and so Dawson was not a dangerous act. This possibly contradicts the judgement of Blaue (1975) which

held that a defendant must take their victim “as they find them.”