Crime XXXXIII - Constructive Manslaughter II – The unlawful act I
We
will now examine the nature of the unlawful act and we will also try to
determine or establish if the severity of the offence or the extent of the
unlawfulness is to be taken into consideration when deciding whether the
offence can be classified as constructive manslaughter.
In
R v Fenton (1830) the accused threw stones down a mine and his actions caused
the scaffolding to collapse and resulted in the death of some miners working in
the mine.
It
was held that the unlawful act in itself was sufficient to constitute
constructive manslaughter, despite the fact that an action was brought in tort
(trespass) (civil law) i.e. the accused did not have either implied or express
permission to enter the premises, and not in criminal law.
The
nature or the type of “unlawful act” that could give rise to constructive
manslaughter was clarified in the case of R v Franklin (1883).
In
R v Franklin (1883) the accused threw a box from a pier and the box hit a
swimmer who drowned as a result. The accused was charged and convicted for
manslaughter (involuntary). It was held that in order to raise constructive
manslaughter the act had to be an act that was unlawful in criminal law and not
merely in civil law.
Prior
to the decision in R v Franklin (1883), constructive manslaughter could be
raised in cases and instances where the accused caused the death of another by
committing an act that was unlawful in either civil or criminal law but post
the decision in R v Franklin (1883), in order to raise or establish
constructive manslaughter, the act must be unlawful in criminal law and not
just in civil law.
Copyright
© 2019 by Dyarne Ward
Comments
Post a Comment