Homicide: Manslaughter

Manslaughter is divided into Voluntary Manslaughter and Involuntary Manslaughter.

Voluntary Manslaughter

1. Loss of Control (formerly Provocation)

◦ Definition: Voluntary manslaughter may be applicable when D loses self-control due to a qualifying trigger and acts in a way that a reasonable person would under the same circumstances. This partial defence reduces murder to manslaughter.

◦ Key Points: This defence was previously known as provocation but has been reformed to focus on loss of control. The qualifying triggers include fear of serious violence or a thing said or done which constitutes a serious wrong.

2. Diminished Responsibility

◦ Definition: A defence where D is convicted of manslaughter rather than murder if they were suffering from a recognised mental condition that substantially impaired their ability to understand their actions, make a rational judgment, or exercise self-control.

◦ Key Points: This applies when mental illness significantly impacts D’s ability to understand or control their actions.

3. Suicide Pact

◦ Definition: A defence where D was part of a suicide pact and the other person died, but D did not intend to kill the other person. If D acted in accordance with the pact and only intended to die themselves, they may be convicted of manslaughter rather than murder.

◦ Key Points: This defence applies when D’s actions were in line with a pact that both parties had agreed upon to end their lives.

Involuntary Manslaughter

1. Gross Negligence Manslaughter (GN)

◦ Definition: Manslaughter that occurs when D’s gross negligence causes the death of another person. This is judged by an objective standard.

◦ Key Case: R v Adomako (1995)

▪ Facts: During an eye operation, the oxygen pipe became disconnected, leading to the patient's death. D, the anaesthetist, was convicted of GN manslaughter.

▪ Court: The House of Lords held that D's breach of duty was so grossly negligent that it justified a manslaughter conviction. The test is an objective one: whether a reasonable person in D’s position would have foreseen an obvious risk of death.

▪ Lord Mackay: Emphasised that the breach must be grossly negligent, akin to tort law standards, and must involve an obvious risk of death.

◦ Key Case: R v Misra (2005)

▪ Facts: Doctors failed to diagnose a patient’s infection, leading to death from toxic shock. They argued that the Adomako precedent was inconsistent with R v G.

▪ Court: Confirmed Adomako remains current law on GN. The test is a question of fact, not law, and the argument regarding inconsistency with R v G was dismissed. Concerns about vagueness and certainty were addressed, with the court finding the test acceptable.

◦ Criticisms of Adomako

▪ Inconsistency with Article 7 ECHR: Concerns that the standards for gross negligence are too vague and may not provide clear guidance on criminal liability.

▪ Inconsistency with Article 6 ECHR: The jury applies principles of law rather than making reasoned, case-specific judgments. Concerns about the subjective nature of applying a vague standard.

◦ Key Case: R v Rose (2017)

▪ Facts: An optometrist neglected to perform a mandatory eye examination, which would have identified a condition leading to death years later. Charged with GN manslaughter but acquitted.

▪ Court: Applied a restrictive interpretation of Adomako, emphasising that the risk of death must be obvious and serious at the time of the breach. This impacts professionals by setting a high threshold for GN.

◦ Key Case: R v Bawa-Garba (2016)

▪ Facts: A doctor’s repeated errors over a long period fell below the standard of care, leading to a conviction for GN manslaughter.

▪ Court: The conviction was upheld despite debates about whether the deviations from the standard of care were extreme enough.

◦ Key Case: R v Evans (2009)

▪ Facts: An older sister gave prohibited drugs to her younger sister, who died from an overdose. The older sister failed to call emergency services.

▪ Court: Convicted of GN manslaughter. The court found a duty of care in such circumstances.

◦ Key Case: R v Willoughby (2004)

▪ Facts: D owned an old, disused pub and asked Mr. Drury to help him set fire to the pub to claim insurance. The fire caused an explosion, leading to the collapse of the building and Drury’s death. D was convicted of GN manslaughter.

▪ Court: D argued that he owed no duty of care, but the jury was instructed to determine if a duty of care existed. The conviction was upheld based on the dangerous nature of the act and its consequences.

▪ Implications: This case demonstrates that even if D's actions are intended to be for financial gain, the resulting death due to the unlawful act can lead to manslaughter if the act was inherently dangerous.

◦ Conflicts with Correspondence Principle: Constructive manslaughter has been criticised for conflicting with the correspondence principle, which requires that the mental state (MR) must align with the actus reus (AR). The danger is that it can criminalise conduct where the mental state does not align with the consequences.

Reckless Manslaughter

• Definition: Involves D being aware of a serious risk of harm and choosing to disregard it. This form of manslaughter is now mostly subsumed under gross negligence.

• Key Case: R v Lidar (1999)

◦ Facts: D drove off while V was partially in the car, leading to V’s death from being crushed by the wheel. Convicted of reckless manslaughter.

◦ Court: Conviction was for recklessness regarding serious injury.

Law Commission Report 1996: Killing by Gross Carelessness

1. Facts:

• The Law Commission Report of 1996 addressed killing by gross carelessness.

• It involves conduct with an obvious risk of death or serious injury, which falls far below expected standards.

• Actions must either intend to cause unlawful injury or be reckless about causing such injury.

• The conduct must have caused the victim’s death.

Constructive Manslaughter (Unlawful Act Manslaughter)

• Definition: A form of manslaughter where death results from an unlawful act that is dangerous and results in the unintended death of a person. It requires proof of an unlawful act that is dangerous and that it caused death.

• Key Case: R v Mitchell (1982)

◦ Facts: D pushed someone in a queue, who then fell into V, causing V’s death. Convicted of constructive manslaughter.

◦ Court: The conviction was based on the transferred malice principle.

• Key Case: R v Watson (1989)

◦ Facts: D committed burglary and verbally abused the occupant, who later died from a heart attack triggered by the burglary. Convicted of constructive manslaughter.

◦ Court: The unlawful act (burglary) was deemed dangerous. The appeal was rejected based on the knowledge of the victim’s vulnerability, applying the Watson test.

• Watson Test: This test requires evaluating the actions of a reasonable person with D’s knowledge of the victim’s circumstances. The test assesses the danger based on what D knew at the time of the unlawful act.

Summary of Key Concepts in Manslaughter

• Voluntary Manslaughter: Applies where D acts in a state of loss of control, under diminished responsibility, or due to a suicide pact.

• Involuntary Manslaughter: Includes gross negligence, reckless, and constructive manslaughter, with different standards for each.

◦ Gross Negligence: Objective test for gross negligence causing death.

◦ Reckless Manslaughter: Based on D’s awareness of serious risk and disregard for it.

◦ Constructive Manslaughter: Involves death resulting from an unlawful and dangerous act.

These categories reflect the legal principles governing different types of manslaughter, focusing on the nature of the conduct and the defendant’s state of mind.