Involuntary manslaughter comprises the commission of the actus reus of homicide without malice aforethought, which is required for specific intent offences like murder.

Authors Avatar
Involuntary manslaughter comprises the commission of the actus reus of homicide without malice aforethought, which is required for specific intent offences like murder. There are now, since R v Adomako [1994], two clearly recognised kinds of involuntary manslaughter. These are unlawful act manslaughter (constructive manslaughter) and gross negligence manslaughter also sometimes referred to as 'reckless' manslaughter.

Unlawful act manslaughter arises where the defendant has first committed an unlawful act, and as a result, someone dies (causation in fact and in law is required). In addition, the unlawful act must be dangerous on an objective test; i.e. it must be 'such as all sober and reasonable people would inevitably recognise must subject the other person to, at least, the risk of some harm resulting therefrom, albeit not serious harm' (established by the Court of Appeal in Church (1996)). The act need not be aimed at a person; it can be aimed at a property, provided it is 'such that all sober and reasonable people would inevitably recognise must subject another person, to at least, the risk of some harm' (Goodfellow (1986)). Here the defendant set fire to his council house in order to be rehoused, but ended up killing several persons inside. The defendant was liable for unlawful act manslaughter, as the criminal act did not need to have been directed at the victim or any other persons.

The risk of harm referred to in the objective test relates to physical harm; fear and apprehension are not sufficient, even if they cause the victim to have a heart attack. In Dawson [1985], the victim died of a stress related heart attack due to a robbery, which had taken place at a petrol station where he had worked. The defendant did not know of the victim's weak heart nor could have a normal prudent person have foreseen the victim's death, and therefore, the defendant was not guilty of unlawful act manslaughter. However, if the victim were obviously frail to a normal prudent person and so was the risk of physical harm to him, then the conviction of involuntary manslaughter would be upheld. This was the case with Watson [1989]. Furthermore, it must be proved that the defendant had the mens rea for the unlawful act, but it is not necessary for the defendant to realise that the act is unlawful or dangerous (Newbury and Jones (1977)).
Join now!


The other main type of involuntary manslaughter is gross negligence manslaughter. This is manslaughter caused by such disregard for life and safety of others (beyond mere tortious negligence) that it warrants punishment by the criminal law. This is also, where a defendant owes the victim a duty of care and commits a lawful act in a very negligent way or simply fails to act. In the case of Adomako [1994], the defendant (an anaesthetist) failed to notice and remedy a defect in the breathing apparatus despite the sounding of an alarm that should have notified him of the ...

This is a preview of the whole essay