The Blip Blop Blog (Team Entity)

Thus far we have looked at the actus reus (or the guilty act) to successfully obtain a conviction for constructive manslaughter. The act has to be unlawful and the unlawful act must satisfy the following criteria:- ·         The unlawful act must be unlawful in criminal law and not just civil law ·         The act must be an overt act and an omission or a failure to do something when there is a duty imposed by either common law or statute to do so will not suffice see R v Lowe (1973) ·         The act must not merely result in physical injury but must be an act that the reasonable man would view as serious and an act that as far as the reasonable man is concerned would lead to dire consequences. Even if there is an assault it may not be sufficient to give rise to a conviction of constructive manslaughter see R v Arobekieke (1988). The test that that is used to determine if the act may lead to serious consequences or could be fatal is the objective test (or the reasonable

The question of whether injecting oneself with heroin, or any other drug that is listed as a class A drug under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, is in itself an unlawful act, arose is the case of R v Dias (2002). In R v Dias (2002) the appellant and the victim jointly purchased some heroin. Like in R v Kennedy (1999) the appellant helped prepare the solution and handed it to the victim in a syringe. The victim then injected himself and died as a result. The trial judge directed the jury in accordance with the decision in R v Kennedy (1999) and the jury returned a verdict of constructive manslaughter. The defense appealed. The appeal was allowed and the conviction was quashed. The question that was raised was whether it was illegal to do or commit an act that results or eventuates in one’s own death? In order to find the answer we have to look at the act itself. In this instance it was injecting oneself with heroin. The question that needs to be asked is whether injectin

The classification of the drug may be crucial in determining if whether a defendant is convicted for constructive manslaughter or otherwise. Judges may be more lenient when the drugs that are the cause of the death do not fall into the category of class A drugs. In R v Kennedy (1999) the defendant supplied the drug, prepared the solution and handed it to the victim in a syringe. The victim injected himself with the solution and later died as a result. The drug that was involved was a class A drug (heroin). The defendant was tried and convicted for constructive manslaughter or unlawful act manslaughter and the defense appealed on the grounds that the defendant supplied and prepared the solution but did not administer it. The appeal was dismissed and the conviction was upheld. The decision is in line with the decision in R v Cato (1976) and the class of drug that is concerned plays an important role in determining if the conviction remains or otherwise. With regards to cau

With reference to the decision in R v Cato (1976) it is important to note that the supply of drugs by itself may not lead to a conviction of constructive manslaughter or unlawful act manslaughter even if there is a very high possibility or a real likelihood that the drug may be abused or misused. The Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 divides drugs into three categories - Class A, Class B and Class C. Drugs listed under class A are the most dangerous and it is a felony to possess, sell or supply these drugs. Therefore, when dealing with drug related offences it is worth taking into account the classification of the drug as per the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. In R v Dalby (1982), the defendant supplied the victim with diaconal tablets. They defendant and the victim then parted company and the victim went off clubbing with some friends and during the course of the night the victim injected himself twice with the drugs with the help of his friends. He returned home and fell asleep and die

With reference to the decision in R v Cato (1976) it is important to note that the supply of drugs by itself may not lead to a conviction of constructive manslaughter or unlawful act manslaughter even if there is a very high possibility or a real likelihood that the drug may be abused or misused. The Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 divides drugs into three categories - Class A, Class B and Class C. Drugs listed under class A are the most dangerous and it is a felony to possess, sell or supply these drugs. Therefore, when dealing with drug related offences it is worth taking into account the classification of the drug as per the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. In R v Dalby (1982), the defendant supplied the victim with diaconal tablets. They defendant and the victim then parted company and the victim went off clubbing with some friends and during the course of the night the victim injected himself twice with the drugs with the help of his friends. He returned home and fell asleep and die

When the defendant argues or claims that the unlawful act was the result of a mistaken belief, in order to assess the dangerousness of the act or the extent of the unlawfulness, the courts will apply the objective test or take into account the perceptions of the reasonable man. Would a reasonable man have perceived the act to be dangerous? In R v Ball (1989) the victim parked her car on the defendant’s land. The defendant and the victim then got into an argument and the victim drove off in her car. She returned later with two men and the defendant went off and came back with a shotgun. He pointed the gun at the victim and pulled the trigger and the victim died as a result. The defendant argued that he did not intent to kill the victim and that he merely intended to scare her away and honestly believed that the gun was loaded with blanks at the time he pulled the trigger. The defendant was tried and convicted for constructive manslaughter. The defense appealed. According

Earlier we’d asked the question in R v Dawson (1985) and R v Watson (1989), if in order for the defendant to be convicted of constructive manslaughter or unlawful act manslaughter, death needs to result from a physical injury or if it is sufficient that death results from a pre-existing medical condition. The decision in R v Carey & Ors (2006) sheds some light on the matter. In R v Carey & Ors (2006), the victim and her friends were out for an evening walk when they stumbled across three men who started making fun of them. The men then became rowdy and soon turned violent. The victim had her hair pulled back and was punched in the face. Afraid, she turned and ran. After running for about 100 meters she collapsed and died. The victim was suffering from a severe heart condition and the attack exacerbated the pre-existing condition and that resulted in her death. The men were tried and convicted for affray and constructive manslaughter or unlawful act manslaughter.

In R v Watson (1989) the defendant threw a brick through the glass window of the victim’s home. The victim was aged and elderly and seriously ill at the time. The defendant unaware of the victim’s condition entered the house and stumbled across the victim. The defendant was in the house for about 90 minutes during which time the victim was verbally abused. Once the defendant had left the house, the victim collapsed and died. The defendant was charged with burglary under section s.9 (1) (a) of the Theft Act 1968. S 9 of the theft act defines burglary and reads as follows: -  (1) A person is guilty of burglary if— (a) he enters any building or part of a building as a trespasser and with intent to commit any such offence as is mentioned in subsection (2) below; or (b) having entered any building or part of a building as a trespasser he steals or attempts to steal anything in the building or that part of it or inflicts or attempts to inflict on any person therein any

In R v Dawson (1985) the defendant attempted to rob a petrol station armed with a gun and an axe-handle. The defendant pointed the gun at the attendant but did not in any way attempt to use the gun or the axe-handle. The attendant pressed the alarm button and as soon as the alarm rang the defendant ran away. Unknown to the defendant the attendant suffered from a serious heart condition and once the defendant had fled the attendant had a heart attack and collapsed. He died soon after. The defendant was tried and convicted for constructive manslaughter and the defense appealed. The conviction was quashed. It was quashed on the grounds that there was a misdirection by the trial judge. The jury were aware of the attendant’s heart condition and the defendant was not. The question that was to be asked was whether the defendant would have foreseen the risk of physical injury (resulting in death) given the fact that he was not aware of the attendant’s heart condition. The above

In addition to the unlawful act being a criminal act i.e. an act prohibited by criminal law and not civil law, the act must also be an act that under most circumstances is viewed as serious. It need not be an act that is fatal or an act that inevitably results in death but rather an act, most people would view (we can apply the objective test here to determine if the act is serious or otherwise because we are looking at things from a general perspective) as something that is above frivolous or an act that most people would not construe as horseplay. In R V Church (1965) The victim mocked the accused or the defendant for his inability to perform sexually. The angry defendant punched the victim thereby knocking her unconscious. According to the statement that was given, the defendant tried to revive the victim but after 30 minutes of trying, the defendant thinking that the victim was dead threw her into a river. The victim’s body was later recovered and according to the autop