Involuntary Manslaughter in Criminal Law - Essay Example

Criminal Law Homicide is defined as an act of killing a human being by another. Murder and manslaughter are two offenses that comprise homicide. Murder occurs when a person who commits the crime is of sound mind, alive and has an intent to kill. Manslaughter can occur with intent but only where partial defense can apply, like loss of control. A death that results from a grossly negligent conduct is also considered a manslaughter as well as a death that results from an illegal act involving harming another person (not necessarily killing a person). There can be two types of manslaughter, voluntary and involuntary. Voluntary manslaughter occurs when a person kills with a malice aforethought or intention (mens rea). Involuntary manslaughter occurs when death occurs because of negligence or because of another illegal, dangerous act. To clarify, Actus Reus is the criminal act. It often goes with mens rea. There are two types of involuntary manslaughter. These are Constructive Manslaughter and Gross Negligence Manslaughter. Constructive manslaughter or Unlawful Act Manslaughter usually occurs when death results from the defendant’s unlawful act. To understand the concept of involuntary manslaughter, we could put the situation of David and Nick for consideration. David and Nick could be charged with Constructive Manslaughter. The prosecution, if the duo should be charged with Constructive Manslaughter, needs to establish the legal elements in the case. The actus reus was homicide, specifically manslaughter. The death occured because of David and Nick’s unlawful act of damaging the tyres of the car Gordon drove. The mens rea for this situation would be the mere idea that they should puncture the tyres of the politician because they are unhappy with the way the politician runs the government. The mere thought that they should inflict an illegal act upon someone’s belongings, whether the intention is to kill or not, is sufficient enough to charge someone of manslaughter, because they intended to inflict harm on someone. Because the death only resulted from an act they performed indirectly on the politician, it can’t be murder. Since the killing is the result of the David and Nick’s unlawful act of slashing the tires, and they were reasonable enough (not insane) to rationalize that they needed to slash Gordon’s tyres because on the grounds that the politician was causing their problems, the act is Constructive Manslaughter. The act cannot be considered murder as they slashed the tyres without meaning to kill the person, even if it meant the death of the driver of the car. The mens rea is quite clear and they indeed meant harm to the politician, although not necessarily his death. The death happened because of the injuries sustained from the head injuries that were incurred during the accident, which is not a direct harm but merely a consequence caused by the defendants’ actions. This phenomenon is called the Natural Consequences of the Defendant’s Act, like the R v Pagett Case in 1983 where the defendant tried to use a little girl as human shield when he was being arrested by the police. The girl died because she took the bullet. This case is similar to David and Nick’s case because Gordon died because David and Nick put him in danger because of their behavior. David and Nick could also be charged with Gross Negligence Manslaughter. This happens when the death is because of negligence or omission on the part of the defendant. According to the judge in R v Bateman (1925) 19 Cr App R 8, the negligence of the accused showed disregard for the life and safety of others as to amount to a crime. To describe the grossness of the negligence in a case, the Adomako (from R v Adomako (1994) 3 All ER 79 ) test: a) the existence of a duty of care to the deceased; b) a breach of that duty of care which; c) causes (or significantly contributes) to the death of the victim; and d) the breach should be characterised as gross negligence, and therefore a crime. Since there is no Good Samaritan rule, there is no duty of care owed by citizens from each other but it would only exist if there is a damage foreseeable, the defendant was in an appropriate proximity and position to prevent any unsound event from happening like in Caparo Industries PLC v Dickman (1990) 2 AC 605. Now because David and Nick were in a position to stop Gordon from riding his car, and they knew the damage that can happen, they were negligent in a sense that they failed to act on the danger that was surely to follow, the negligence caused the death of Gordon. The mens rea for this situation would be the mere idea that they should puncture the tyres of the politician because they are unhappy with the way the politician runs the government. And the Actus Reus would be Gross Negligence Manslaughter (slashing of tyres). However, David and Nick are both from the pub. Because of this, one can infer that they were intoxicated. They were basically not in their right and rational mind. They can have their defence on that ground, as in the unlawful act manslaughter, the killing should be where in the unlawful act is done when the defendants were “sober and reasonable people that would realise would subject the victim to the risk of some physical harm resulting there from, albeit not serious harm and whether or not the defendant realized this” - R v Williams and Davis (1992) 2 All ER 183. Because they were drunk, they were not sober at all, and they probably acted on their urges subconsciously. Because of this, they can argue that their state of mind was not at their normal stance, and their urges took the best of them. Besides that, they only probably risked for bodily injury, not death. So the mens rea is not sufficient at all to support the claims for them intentionally killing the politician. The negligence on the part of the defendants would rise from the fact that they knew that riding the car with slashed wheels was dangerous but they did not prevent the politician. Under normal circumstances, they probably would but since they were intoxicated, they have not fulfilled the duty since it only exists if defendants have foreseen the happening. Therefore, because the law would only regard the defendant’s act as a cause of death if it shows that it was indeed the operating and the substantial cause of the demise of the victim, David and Nick could actually be acquitted since they did not cause it, not in their sober minds anyway. The mens rea, although solid, would be clouded with emotional judgments brought upon by intoxication. References: Adomako (1994) 3 All ER 79  Caparo Industries PLC v Dickman (1990) R v Williams and Davis (1992) 2 All ER 183 R v Smith (1959) 2 QB 35. Read More