Understanding Manslaughter and Its Types

What is Manslaughter?

Both murder and manslaughter are fatal offences against the person known as homicide offences.
The actus reus for both offences is the same; 'the unlawful killing of a human being in rerum natura under the queen’s peace'.
The criminal offence of manslaughter is much broader than murder as it encompasses a range of different ways it can be charged.
Manslaughter can be charged as either Voluntary Manslaughter or Involuntary Manslaughter.

Voluntary Manslaughter

Voluntary manslaughter is when the defendant intended to kill the victim, that is, they have demonstrated both the actus reus and mens rea for murder.
The defendant is able to reduce the charge down to voluntary manslaughter if one of three partial defences to murder are successfully argued:
- Diminished Responsibility
- Loss of Self Control
- Suicide Pact

Involuntary Manslaughter

Involuntary Manslaughter is when the defendant unlawfully killed someone but did not mean to, or in legal terms, they lacked the required mens rea of 'malice aforethought', that is the intention to kill or commit GBH.
There are two specific offences under Involuntary Manslaughter,
- Unlawful Act Manslaughter
- Gross Negligence Manslaughter

Unlawful Act Manslaughter

Also referred to as Constructive Manslaughter as liability is constructed from a lesser criminal offence.
Requires four elements to be proven by the prosecution:
- The defendant must carry out an act:
  - Must be a physical act, an omission to do something is insufficient.
  - No duty to act as a Good Samaritan
- The act must be a criminal offence:
  - Any criminal offence will suffice, but not a civil offence, e.g. breach of contract, tort or trespass.
- The act must be dangerous:
  - Objective test, would a reasonable person recognise the risk of some harm.
  - Irrespective of whether the defendant identified the risk.
  - Risk does not have to be the specific harm, only the risk of some harm.
  - Thin Skull principle - defendant must take his victim as he finds them.
- The act must cause the death of a human being:
  - Must be the death of a human being in existence, animals or foetuses are insufficient.
  - The chain of causation must be established; factual and legal causation must be shown:
    - Factual causation: asks 'But for the defendant’s act would the victim have died as and when they did?':
    - Can be established through medical evidence.
    - Legal causation: asks 'Was the defendant’s act an ‘operating and substantial’ cause of the victim’s death?':
    - The defendant’s act must be more than a slight or trifling cause of the death.
    - The defendant’s act will be insufficient if an intervening act renders their actions insignificant.
    - Examples of intervening acts:
      - Medical Treatment:
        
        Medical treatment rarely breaks the chain of causation.
        
        Negligent medical treatment will not break the chain of causation.
        
        Only palpably wrong medical treatment has the potential to break the chain of causation.
        
        Turning off life support will not break the chain of causation.
      - Third Party Acts:
        
        A free, deliberate, and informed act by a third-party will break the chain of causation.
        
        A reasonable act of self-defence will not.
      - Natural events:
        
        An act of God - extreme and unforeseeable force of nature - will break the chain of causation.
        
        Foreseeable natural events will not break the chain of causation.
      - Victim’s own acts:
        
        If the victim’s own act is entirely unreasonable, unforeseeable, and “daft” then it will break the chain of causation.
        
        Religious beliefs will not be considered unreasonable by the court.
        
        The thin skull principle applies to spiritual as well as physical conditions.
    - Key cases:
      - R v White - Factual causation
      - R v Smith - Legal causation
      - R v Jordan - Medical treatment
      - R v Malcherek and Steel - Medical treatment - turning off life support
      - R v Paggett - Third Party Acts - self-defence
      - R v Williams - Victim’s own acts
      - R v Roberts - Victim’s own acts
      - R v Blaue - Victim’s own acts - religious beliefs
      - R v Hayward - Victim’s own acts - unconscious act
      - R v Kennedy (No2) - drugs supplied to the victim

Unlawful Act Manslaughter - Mens Rea

Mens rea required for unlawful and dangerous act manslaughter is the mens rea for the base offence.
R v Lamb - If the defendant has no mens rea for the act they are committing or intend to commit, then they cannot be found guilty of unlawful act manslaughter.
R v Cato - Injection administered by defendant will always constitute liability.

Gross Negligence Manslaughter

Negligence is a legal concept that describes failing to take proper care.
It is a civil concept, and usually doesn’t lead to criminal liability.
Gross negligence manslaughter is a criminal offence, and the most serious level of negligence.
It was established in R v Adomako.
The defendant must owe a duty of care to the victim.
This can be established using civil case law or the Caparo test.
There must be a breach of this duty of care.
This can involve a skilled professional falling short of the standard of care expected by competent individuals in that profession.
The defendant’s actions must have directly caused the death of the victim.
The defendant’s negligence must be “gross” – it has to be so bad that it deserves criminal punishment.
The defendant’s conduct must be deemed to have significantly departed from the standard of care, involving a risk of death.
The defendant’s actions must be considered truly “exceptionally bad", displaying indifference to an obvious risk of life.