• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Involuntary Manslaughter - In struggling to define the boundaries of involuntary manslaughter the courts have encountered considerable difficulties and produced a muddle - Discuss whether this criticism is justified

Extracts from this document...


Suliman The Merciful Involuntary Manslaughter - Homework { In struggling to define the boundaries of involuntary manslaughter the courts have encountered considerable difficulties and produced a muddle } Discuss whether this criticism is justified. 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)). ...read more.


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)). 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 problem. ...read more.


It is probable that reckless manslaughter only exists in motor manslaughter cases established in Adomako. It is true that the courts have encountered considerable difficulties in defining the boundaries of involuntary manslaughter, but since Adomako, it seems that the courts have finally clarified its position on involuntary manslaughter and is therefore, no longer seen to have produced a muddle. However, many critics often voice the criticism that the objective rule in unlawful act manslaughter is unfair, as it does not reflect the moral culpability of the defendant as he is compared to a normal prudent person, as opposed to someone with similar characteristics. In addition, in some cases such as Adomako (a trained professional anaesthetist), comparing him to a normal prudent person in the objective test is unacceptable. A fairer rule would be to compare the defendant with someone, of similar character, for example Adomako could be compared with another trained anaesthetist of a similar sex, age, expertise, and experience or whatever characteristics which might be relevant or appropriate to the case. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Law of Tort section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Law of Tort essays

  1. Gross negligence and recklessness.

    culpability between the defendant who adverts to a risk and the one that does not. Secondly, he suggested that it was not a practicable distinction for use in a jury trial. The answer to the first seems to be that moral philosophy clearly draws a distinction between the deliberate risk-taker


    It is a tort actionable 'per se', i.e. without proof of loss. It is actionable merely because it has been committed. Possession: Since trespass is a wrong done to the possessor of land, only he (rather than the owner, unless, of course, the owner is also in possession) can sue.

  1. Involuntary Manslaughter

    The risk need only be of some harm - not of serious harm, LARKIN (1943). An act aimed at property can still be such that a sober and reasonable person would realise the risk of some harm, GOODFELLOW (1986). There must be a risk of physical harm; mere fear is not enough, DAWSON (1985).

  2. Involuntary Manslaughter

    This may also be seen as unfair, as D may not have any intention to do any wrong, and may not realise that his act does in fact entail any danger. The risk need only be of "some harm" as shown in the case of Larkin where the defendant was threatening somebody with a razor.

  1. Discussing Homicide - muder - actus reus.

    cause of the death provided that the defendant was a significant contributory cause. So, the fact that others contribute to the victim's death or that the victim himself plays a contributory part is irrelevant. Let's look at a case example on manslaughter where the issue of causation is the same as that of murder.

  2. British Law in Health and Social Care

    Negligence Negligence is a tort which establishes legal liability for careless actions or inaction which causes injury. Therefore negligence is not concerned with the action or inaction, but with the manner in which the action or inaction is carried out.

  1. One of the main issue here is whether Adder is liable for Bust Ltd ...

    It was held Williams and Reid v Natural Life Health Food, the house of Lords rejected the view of the special relationship for the claimant and the company. Let us now look at Kevin's case, if Adder is liable for his loss, if we look at the legal principle laid

  2. In this report, the differences between contractual liability and tortuous liability are explained. In ...

    can establish clear policies for employee?s behavior on job and enforce them to carry out. In case the employees cause damages or injuries on the job, the employer may be able to escape liability by showing that actions were not in course of the employment as in the case of General Engineering Services Ltd.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work