Involuntary Manslaughter

Involuntary Manslaughter

Involuntary manslaughter is an unlawful killing where the defendant

does not have the intention to kill or cause GBH. The lack of

intention is what distinguishes involuntary manslaughter from murder.

There are two ways of committing involuntary manslaughter. These are

unlawful act manslaughter and Gross negligence manslaughter. The

maximum sentence for involuntary manslaughter is life imprisonment,

thus giving the judge discretion to impose any sentence, which is

suitable for the particular circumstances of the offence. In some

cases, the judge may even pass a non-custodial sentence.

Unlawful act manslaughter

Unlawful act manslaughter is also known as constructive manslaughter

because the liability for the death is built up or constructed from

the facts that the defendant has done a dangerous unlawful act, which

caused the death. This makes the defendant liable, even though he did

not realise that death or injury might occur. The actus reus of

unlawful act manslaughter are:

- The defendant must do an unlawful act

- The act must be dangerous on an objective test

- The act must cause death

- The act was substantial cause of death

The death must be caused by an unlawful act, which must be a criminal

offence. A civil wrong is not enough, FRANKLIN (1883). There must be

an act: an omission cannot not create liability for unlawful act

manslaughter, LOWE (1973). In many cases, the unlawful act will be

some kind of assault, but any criminal offence can form the unlawful

act, provided it involves and act which is dangerous in the sense that

it is likely to cause some injury. The unlawful act mu...

... middle of paper ...

...

mere 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 of punishment’.

In ADOMAKO (1994) the HoFL approved this test and stressed that it was

matter for the jury. The jury had to decide whether, having regard to

the risk of death involved, the conduct of the defendant was as bad in

all the circumstances as to amount, in their judgment, to a criminal

act or omission. It is also not clear, if the test is that there had

to be a risk of death through the defendant’s conduct or whether the

risk need only be to ‘health and welfare’ of the victim, STONE AND

DOBINSON (1977). Or ‘disregard for the life and safety of others’,

BATEMAN (1925). The mens rea required is negligence, rather than

recklessness as it used to be.