Involuntary Manslaughter
Gross Negligence Manslaughter
Involuntary manslaughter
Actus reus
Involuntary manslaughter has the same actus reus as
murder (unlawful killing) but a different mens rea. Murder
requires an intention to kill or to cause grievous bodily
harm, whereas involuntary manslaughter does not state
what the required mens rea is, just that it is something
other than the intention to kill or to cause grievous bodily
harm.
Involuntary manslaughter
Voluntary and involuntary
manslaughter
In cases of voluntary manslaughter, the defendant
commits murder but has one of the three partial defences
contained in the Homicide Act 1957. Involuntary
manslaughter is a separate crime.
Involuntary manslaughter
Types of involuntary manslaughter
There are two types of involuntary manslaughter:
• constructive manslaughter
(unlawful and dangerous act)
• gross negligence manslaughter
Involuntary manslaughter
Comparing types of involuntary
manslaughter
• Constructive manslaughter is also known as unlawful
and dangerous act manslaughter.
• Gross negligence manslaughter is based on the rules
of civil negligence, with the extra requirement of risk of
death. It was established in the case of R v Adomako
(1994).
Involuntary manslaughter: gross negligence
Gross negligence
manslaughter
Gross negligence manslaughter is when a
person dies as a result of the negligence of
another, and the degree of negligence by the
defendant is sufficiently serious as to make him
criminally liable for the death.
Bateman (1925) – gross negligence by the
defendant can be the basis for criminal liability –
the test was “does the conduct of the accused
show such disregard for the life and safety of
others as to amount to a crime against the state
and conduct deserving of punishment?”
Andrews (1937) – must be a very high level of
negligence for crime of gross negligence
manslaughter to be established – Lord Atkin
Who had 5 years earlier laid out the test for
negligence in civil cases in Donoghue v
Stevenson (1932) –
“persons who are so closely and directly affected
by my act that I ought reasonably to have them
in contemplation as being so affected when I am
directing my mind to the acts or omissions which
are called into question.”
Involuntary manslaughter: gross negligence
Actus reus
Gross negligence manslaughter was defined in the case of
R v Adomako (1995). It requires:
• a duty of care
• a breach of that duty that caused death
• a risk of death
The rules were
restated and
clarified by the HL in
Adomako. The
requirements are:
A duty of care
Breach of that duty
which causes death
Gross negligence
as regards that
breach, which the
jury feel justify
criminal liability
(included in this is
that the jury must
have regard to the
risk involved)
= gross negligence
manslaughter
Involuntary manslaughter: gross negligence
Duty of care
A duty of care is established using the civil neighbour
principle from Donoghue v Stevenson (1932). You owe a
duty of care to ‘persons so closely and directly affected by
…my acts or omissions’.
It is a question of law as to whether the defendant owes a
duty of care, and therefore it is an issue for the judge to
decide. Since Caparo Industries v Dickman (1990), the
judge can establish the existence of a duty of care
incrementally and does not have to establish one if it is
against public policy to do so.
Involuntary manslaughter: gross negligence
Breach of duty
In gross negligence manslaughter, there must also 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 ‘consider whether the extent to which the
defendant’s conduct departed from the proper standard of
care incumbent upon him, involving as it must have done
a risk of death to the victim, was such as it should be
judged criminal’ (Lord MacKay in R v Adomako, 1995).
Involuntary manslaughter: gross negligence
Risk of death
In R v Litchfield (1998), the Court of Appeal favoured the
subjective test stating that the defendant ‘must have
appreciated the risk he was taking’. A breach can also
occur where there is a contractual situation.
In R v Singh (1999), the trial judge directed the jury that:
‘The circumstances must be such that a reasonably
prudent person would have foreseen a serious and obvious
risk not merely of injury or even serious injury but of
death.’ This suggests that the ‘risk of death’ requirement
of gross negligence manslaughter is now regarded as an
objective test. Duty of care owed by landlord towards
tenant.
• Wacker (2002) – duty owed to one with
whom the defendant is complicit in crime.
Gross Negligence
• Bateman (1925) and Andrews (1937) both
stated that the degree of negligence amounting
to manslaughter must be far greater than in a
civil case.
• The jury must take into account all evidence and
decide whether the breach of duty was serious
enough to amount to gross negligence. They
also have to decide with regard to the risk of
death whether it amounted to a criminal act or
omission. If so then a verdict of gross negligence
manslaughter can be given.
Gross negligence
• What happened in Finlay (2001) and
Edwards (2001) and Misra (2004)?
Involuntary manslaughter: gross negligence
Mens rea
The mens rea of gross negligence manslaughter is gross
negligence. Lord MacKay referred to the earlier case of R v
Bateman (1925), in which Lord Hewart CJ said:
‘In order to establish criminal liability the facts must be
such that, in the opinion of the jury, the negligence of the
accused went beyond a mere matter of compensation
between subjects and showed such disregard for the life
and safety of others as to amount to a crime against the
state and conduct deserving punishment.’
This is a subjective test.