Involuntary Manslaughter Revision - Homicide

INVOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER REVISION

D did not intend to kill or cause GBH –May be liable for involuntary manslaughter.

The defendant is setting out to commit a less serious offence but in the process somebody dies. E.g. bank robbery and security guard is killed by the robber. 

To be guilty of this offence must show three things;

1)   Unlawful

2)   Dangerous;

3)   Caused death

Common law offence identified and defined through case law

DPP v Newbruy [1977] – Outlined these elements.

Defendants threw stone of a railway bridge, hit a train and killed a guard within the train. Does the Newbury test apply??

Common law offence, various bits of case law to find out which bit of the elements this may be. Controversial test as convicting someone for something they did not foresee. The way in which it has been interrupted has been quite controversial.  

1.    UNLAWFUL ACT

There is no need to say that defendant committing that certain act, they do not have to intended that death may result. It is just enough that they acted deliberately in the act they were doing. 

Deliberate conduct in original offence.

Andrews c DPP [1937] 

A driver of a car, lost control and killed a pedestrian. Was what he did a sufficiently criminal unlawful act? “a truly criminal act is required and not just “a lawful act with a degree of carelessness which the legislature makes criminal”. Was the original offence sufficiently criminal?

AG’s ref (no 3 of 1994) [1998] 

Stabbed pregnant girlfriend, she survived, baby was born but died a few days after. Held” at the time of the stabbing, an unlawful, deliberate act. the D had MR and AR assault. In order for them to find the defendant guilty, it was the assault of the girlfriend which is the underlying deliberate act. 

R v Dhaliwal [2006] 

Husband hit his wife, caused minor head to wound but part of a sustained campaign of domestic abuse against her. The wife then committed suicide, was charged with constructive manslaughter. Tried to argue that domestic violence lead to psychological harm and that harm had been an equivalent to GBH. Held: No evidence recognises psychiatric disorder therefor no GBH therefore no unlawful act. Both elements present at the time. 

R v Meeking [2013] 

D was a passenger in the car, D pulled the handbrake caused the car to spin and crash Driver was killed. Prosecution argued that Unlawful act was an offence under road traffic Act for interfering with a motor vehicle. Defence tried to say he didn’t interfere with the vehicle she was interfering with the driving of the vehicle and wasn’t the same thing. If it wasn’t present, then no manslaughter as have to show the first offence first. Held: interfering with a vehicle can be interpreted in this way therefore this element of unlawful act can be proven. 

OMISSIONS? Can constructive manslaughter…