Unlawful Act Manslaughter

In this assessment I will be discussing Keith’s liability for the deaths of Kurt and Janis, as well as Ginger’s liability for Lenny’s death in relation to unlawful act manslaughter. Neither Keith nor Ginger meant to kill or cause Grievous Bodily Harm to the victims; therefore, they cannot be charged with murder.
Manslaughter is seen to be a wide-ranging offence which deals with all deaths just short of virtual certainty, as defined in the case of R v Nedrick, to just beyond accidental death. Manslaughter is the homicidal offences that occur without the presence of malice aforethought. Unlawful act manslaughter, a type of involuntary manslaughter, is defined in the case of R v Larkin by Justice Humphrey’s in the Court of Criminal Appeal,

However, the intention cannot be to harm or result in the death of the victim. In the case of R v Lowe, the defendant wilfully neglected his child which resulted in their death, contrary to s.1 (1) of the Children and Young Persons Act. The wilful neglect of his child was not sufficient for a conviction of unlawful act manslaughter, nevertheless the omission, either intentional or deliberate could lead to a conviction of unlawful act manslaughter. Another element that must be proved is that the act was unlawful as shown in the case of R v Franklin, where Justice Field stated that the “mere fact of a civil wrong…ought not be used as an incident which is a necessary step in a criminal case…” so, the unlawful act must be considered a criminal offence. The prosecution must then prove the objective third element, which is that the act was dangerous which can be seen in R v Church, where Lord Edmund-Davies states that the act must be seen to have at least risk some harm, potentially resulting in serious harm to a “reasonable and sober” person. The final element created by Lord Salmon, was that the act must cause the death of the victim. In the case of R v Kennedy (No.2), it was held that the defendant cannot be found guilty of manslaughter if they supplied the drug that the victim voluntarily

The unlawful act is the possession and supplying of the controlled substance, which is an offence under the Misuse of Drugs Act. The requirement that the act is unlawful has been satisfied by the act of possession and supplying a noxious substance is a criminal offence. However, the precedence set in the review case of R v Kennedy Keith should not be held as liable for the death of Kurt, since the self-administration of the substance broke the chain of causation. Even though the harm that can come from the supplying of a controlled drug is dangerous to a reasonable man, the fact that the drug was self-administered means that Kurt was the one to cause the harm to himself, which then resulted in his death. However, this does not prevent Kurt from potentially being convicted of gross negligent manslaughter, after accepting a duty of care for those using his controlled drugs, as demonstrated in the case of R v Dias. However, in relation to unlawful manslaughter, Keith is not liable for the death of