Involuntary Manslaughter
In order to critically discuss whether the law governing involuntary manslaughter is in a satisfactory state, I must first look at the current law, outlining the problems, and then look at proposed changes.
Involuntary manslaughter –
- This is where death occurs as a result of conduct by the defendant.
- It has similar AR to murder, but lacks the MR of murder.
- It can include a very wide set of circumstances.
- The maximum sentence is life, but the judge has discretion in sentencing.
- There are three types of involuntary manslaughter, as well as a newer area which is emerging. These are;
- Constructive manslaughter (unlawful act manslaughter)
- Gross negligence manslaughter
- Subjective recklessness manslaughter
- And the newer area, corporate manslaughter.
Constructive Manslaughter
This is made up from an unlawful and dangerous act where death is the consequence, even though death may never have been contemplated by the defendant.
AR
- The defendants’ unlawful and dangerous act caused the death of another human being.
MR
- It must be proved that D had the MR for the unlawful act, but it is not necessary to prove that D foresaw any harm from his act.
An omission is not enough to create unlawful act manslaughter, as shown in the case of Lowe where the defendant was charged with neglecting his child. This could be seen as slightly unfair, as an omission causing death may be just as bad, as or even worse than an act causing death. For instance, flicking a cigarette in a petrol station, as it is an unlawful act, littering, and a dangerous act, and if a death occurred could amount to constructive manslaughter. Neglect to a child could be seen as more serious than this, but does not amount to constructive manslaughter. The unlawful act must be dangerous on an objective test rather than subjective. 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. A drunken woman swayed and cut her throat. Manslaughter was upheld. The act also need not be aimed at the victim, as in Mitchell. The defendant was waiting impatiently in a post office queue. He punched a 71 year old man, falling into an 89 year old woman who fell and died. The defendant was convicted of manslaughter. The act need not even be directed at a person, it can be aimed at property, provided it is dangerous in the sense that it is likely to cause harm to another, as shown in Goodfellow. In essence this means that, somebody may commit what is seen as a minor offence, with only “some” risk of danger, not aimed at anybody, yet still commit constructive manslaughter. The earlier example used of a man flicking a cigarette but in a petrol station is a good example of this. The unlawful act is only a minor offence, littering, and does not hold as much danger as say, pointing a loaded gun at somebody, yet D may be convicted all the same. The risk of harm refers to physical harm, something causing fear and apprehension in the victim is not enough. However, if a reasonable person would have known that some physical harm was likely to occur, and it causes death, such as a heart attack for example, then D may be guilty.
