- Information
- AI Chat
Involuntary manslaughter homicide LW157
Criminal Law (LW157)
National University of Ireland Maynooth
Recommended for you
Preview text
Homicide: Involuntary manslaughter: LW
Involuntary manslaughter:
- Manslaughter by an unlawful and dangerous act
- Manslaughter by gross (criminal) negligence
- [Statutory corporate manslaughter]
- [Motor manslaughter]
Unlawful & Dangerous Act:
‘Constructive manslaughter’: The act must be a criminal offence, carrying with it the risk of bodily harm to another. A tort will not suffice. (dangerousness is judged objectively). D must be proved to have performed an act which was: Unlawful Dangerous
Caused the death of the victim
Actus Reus? Mens rea?
These cases “represent the only examples in our criminal law where the accused may be found guilty of a serious criminal offence without the necessity of the prosecution proving that the accused was aware that his conduct might bring about the external element of the crime.” (Charleton at para 7.) “Liability is constructive in that an accused’s intention to inflict some trivial injury to another person would make it justifiable for the law to hold him accountable for the unexpected result of his behaviour, that is, death.” – LRC Assault manslaughter may involve varying degrees of culpability due to the varying degrees of violence which may be employed. The more brutal the assault (i. if several punches or kicks are applied to the head or if the accused brandishes a knife), the more reprehensible the criminal conduct. Different levels of culpability are reflected in sentencing decisions E. unlawful =assault If you commit an assault with the intention of causing harm- [as opposed to the intention to kill or cause serious injury which is the mens rea for murder]- and you kill someone, then you are guilty of manslaughter
R v Wild (1837) 2 Lew 214: An intention to cause only minor harm was found to be sufficient to constitute manslaughter.
R v Larkin [1943] 1 AII ER 217: must be unlawful and dangerous act D threatened a man who was seeing Larkin’s mistress with an open ‘cut-throat’ razor. The woman was also present and was drunk. She swayed against Larkin and accidentally cut her throat on the razor. Held For a manslaughter conviction it must be shown that the D’s actions were unlawful and dangerous. D’s action was clearly dangerous and it constituted an assault. So both parts of the test were satisfied and the conviction was upheld. Q: was D’s action dangerous and did he intend to commit a crime? “where the act which a person is engaged in performing is unlawful, then, if at the same time it is a dangerous act, that is, an act which is likely to injure another person, and quite
Homicide: Involuntary manslaughter: LW
inadvertently he causes the death of that other person by that act, then he is guilty of manslaughter.”
Locus classicus- Ireland: AG v Crosbie and Meehan [1966] IR 490 [Kenny j. (CCA) approved larkin] Classic Authority in Ireland: People (AG) v Crosbie and Meehan [1966] IR 490. Court of Criminal Appeal. C and M and two other men were charged with the murder of a man called Murphy. Charge arose out of a melée which had developed in the course of which Murphy was stabbed allegedly by Crosbie. Murphy then said that Crosbie had a knife and stabbed him. “He has a knife. He stabbed me.” Murphy died. Appellants were acquitted of murder, convicted of manslaughter. TJs direction was challenged on appeal.
Kenny J for the CCA “A person who produces a knife, with the intention of intimidating or frightening another and not for self-defence commits and assault and the act done is therefore unlawful. When a killing resulted from an unlawful act, the old law was that the unlawful quality of the act was sufficient to constitute the offence of manslaughter. The correct view, however, is that the act causing death must be unlawful and dangerous to constitute the offence of manslaughter. The dangerous quality of the act must however be judged by objective standards and it is irrelevant that the accused person did not think that the act was dangerous. ...”
Here the act was unlawful and dangerous because the knife was brandished in order to frighten or intimidate, and not in self-defence. Therefore, the act causing death must be unlawful and dangerous and the dangerousness of the act is judged by objective standards, not according to the mental state or opinion of the accused person. Whether or not the act was dangerous is a question of fact for the jury to decide objectively. In other words, it does not matter at all if the Defendant thought that the act was not dangerous.
Involuntary manslaughter homicide LW157
Module: Criminal Law (LW157)
University: National University of Ireland Maynooth
