Requires the defendant to have committed an unlawful and dangerous Act.
This is the Actus Reus of the crime, the Mens Rea is that which is required for the unlawful Act.
UNLAWFUL ACT
The unlawful act must be a criminal offence and unlawful. There have been many drug cases which have required the courts to assess what an unlawful act is. CASE: R v Cato (1976).
Other unlawful acts include assult, arson and criminal damages, the unlawful act must cause the victims death. CASE: R v Kennedy (1999).
DANGEROUS ACT
The act must be considered dangerous, the test for dangerousness was established in R v Church (1967). It is an objective test because it test whether the ordinary reasonable person would see a risk of harm. CASE:R v Church (1967), R v Newbury and Jones (1976), R v Watson (1989).
1 of 5
Constructive Manslaughter.
NOT AN OMISSION.
Constructive manslaughter requires an unlawful act an omission is sufficient. CASE: R v Lowe (1973).
MENS REA.
The defendant doesn't require any Mens Rea that shows that the defendant foresaw a risk of death, but the defendant must have the Mens Rea required for an unlawful dangerous act.
The transferred malice rule applies to constructive manslaughter.
CASE: R v Lamb (1967), R v Mitchell (1983).
2 of 5
Gross Negligence Manslaughter.
Involuntary manslaughter requires a duty of care, a breach of that duty that caused death and a rish of death.
The Mens Rea of this crime is called gross negligence.
Gross negligence manslaughter differs from constructive manslaughter as it can be commiited by omission, there does not have to be an unlawful act and there must be a risk of death rather than a risk of some harm. CASE: R v Admako (1995).
DUTY OF CARE
You owe a duty of care to 'persons so closely and directly affected by my acts or omissions' as seen in Donoghue v Stevenson.
It is up to the judge to decide whether the defendant owes a duty of care.
CASE: R v Wacker (2002)
3 of 5
Gross negligence manslaughter continued.
BREACH OF DUTY THAT CAUSED DEATH.
There must be a breach of duty, which means that the defendant has fallen below the standard of care expected of the ordinary 'reasonable man'.
The breach must also be serious.
It is up to the Jury to decide whethether the extent to which the defendant's conduct departed from the proper standard of care.
CASE: R v Becker (2000)
RISK OF DEATH
The requirement of risk of death restircts liability.
Not everyone who owes a duty of care ahd has breached their duty of care will be convicted of Gross negligence manslaughter
There must have been a foreseen risk of death.
CASE: R v Singh (1999).
4 of 5
Reckless Manslaughter
There was confusion after the ruling of R v Adomako (1995) as to whether reckless manslaughter still existed.
The house of lords stated that there was no need for three types of involuntary manslaughter so abolished reckless manslaughter.
Comments
Report
Report
Report