Assessing Potential Liability for Adam and Mia

Introduction

In this problem scenario, there are two issues. First issue is whether Adam may be potentially liable for involuntary manslaughter. Second issue is whether Mia may be potentially liable for involuntary manslaughter. The following two sections discuss these issues by applying the law to the facts of the problem scenario. The law applicable to the situation is the common law related to involuntary manslaughter.

Involuntary manslaughter: the law

In R v Creamer, it was held that a person is guilty of involuntary manslaughter for an unlawful action likely to harm another person, but death is neither foreseen nor intended but occurs due to the action. In involuntary manslaughter, the accused may be held responsible for causing death by tracing the death to fault in committing even a minor criminal act. In R v Goodfellow, there are four elements that have been included in the determination of involuntary manslaughter these being, intentional act, unlawful act, leading to realisation to a reasonable person of risk of physical harm, and cause of death of that person. Intention can be ascertained when the person has intention to bring about the commission of the offence, or where the outcome of the event is a certainty. Secondly, there must be some base unlawful offence that can be established against the defendant.

Involuntary manslaughter involves actus reus, because there is death of a person. However, the mens rea for murder is missing in the offence. Thus, involuntary manslaughter refers to an unlawful killing without the mens rea element. In DPP v Newbury and Jones, it has been held that it must be established that the defendant intended to commit an unlawful act, irrespective of not having foreseeability of death or other harm. In this context, it may be noted that there are cases where a person may have not intended harm, such as when a single punch is delivered, but there may still be liability for involuntary manslaughter if death is caused.

Application of the law

Adam

In this situation, Adam and Ben had a fight and Adam pushed Ben into the fast-flowing river. The application of involuntary manslaughter to this situation will depend on whether the act of pushing Ben into the river would be an unlawful act, that is, a base unlawful offence. Even though the intention may not be to cause death or serious harm to Ben, the act of pushing him into fast flowing river can itself be established as a criminal act which can lead to the liability for involuntary manslaughter. This can be established on the basis of cases already decided by the courts in which involuntary manslaughter has been established where actions arose out of fights. In one case, where the deceased was chased up a hill, and knocked to the ground and then kicked, the court decided that this involved murder and not manslaughter. On the other hand, where the deceased was pulled down the stairs and then kicked several times and later died due to severing of the end of the pancreas, the court decided that this was involuntary manslaughter. In another case, a single punch of moderate force to the right cheek of the deceased led to the court deciding that this was a case of involuntary manslaughter.

In the present case, the action by Adam involved pushing Ben into a river, which can be held to be an unlawful act that lead to the death of Ben although there was no such intention to cause death. Based on the cases discussed above, potential liability for involuntary manslaughter can arise.

Mia

Applying the same principles of law to the situation involving Mia, potential liability for involuntary manslaughter may not arise. As discussed earlier, there are four elements that are required for establishing involuntary manslaughter, these being intentional act, unlawful act, leading to realisation to a reasonable person of risk of physical harm, and cause of death of that person. Intention for causing an unlawful act has to be established. A base unlawful offence also has to be established against the defendant. In this situation, Dipika, arrived at the hospital with an allergic reaction to a bee sting and Mia accidentally injected the adrenalin into Dipika’s lung leading to Dipika’s death. The question is whether Mia has intentionally committed an unlawful act which lead to the death of Dipika even when not intended. This is the requirement for establishing involuntary manslaughter.

In R v Webb, the court held that the if a doctor makes an accidental mistake in treatment despite having competent degree of skill and knowledge, manslaughter does not arise, but if a person totally ignorant medicine administers a violent and dangerous remedy to one labouring under a disease then they can be guilty of manslaughter. The case of R v Adomako, is also important because in this case, the court laid down a four stage test for establishing gross negligence manslaughter, these being existence of a duty of care to the victim, breach of this duty, causation or link between breach of duty and death and gross negligence. The last point requires ascertainment of whether there the conduct of the defendant was so bad in the circumstances, so as to amount to to a criminal act or omission.” There should be an indifference to an obvious risk of injury, actual foresight of risk but with the determination to run that risk, and a high degree of negligence in attempted avoidance of the risk. These requirements are not met in this case because there was lack of actual foresight of risk by Mia and lack of determination to run the risk regardless of the foresight or even a high degree of negligence in attempting to avoid the risk.

Conclusion

Adam may have potential liability for involuntary manslaughter because of the existence of intentional unlawful act which ultimately led to death of Ben. Mia does not meet the requirements of involuntary manslaughter as she did not intend unlawful action, did not have foresight of risk or run the risk intentionally and negligently.

Looking for further insights on Assessing Actus Reus and Mens Rea in Murder? Click here.

List of cases

DPP v Newbury and Jones [1976] AC 500.

R v Adomako [1994] 3 WLR 288.

R v Creamer [1966] 1 QB 72.

R. v Fisher [2008] 2 Cr.App.R.(S.) 34.

R v Furby (Andrew) [2005] EWCA Crim 3147

R v Goodfellow (1986) 83 Cr App R 23.

R v Jones [2009] 1 Cr.App.R.(S) 73.

R v Lamb [1967] 2 QB 981.

R v Mohan [1976] QB 1.

R v Webb (1834) 2 Lew CC 196.

R v Woollin [1999] 1 AC 82.

Journals

Ferner RE and Sarah E. McDowell, ‘Doctors charged with manslaughter in the course of medical practice, 1795–2005: a literature review’ (2006) 99(6) Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 309.

Todd L, Kenar Usman, Faye Tyler, Lily Toffolo, and Andrew Temple, ‘Should the laws on involuntary manslaughter in England and Wales be reformed?’ (2019) 1(1) The Student Journal of Professional Practice and Academic Research 65.

Reports

Crown Prosecution Service, Homicide: Murder and Manslaughter- Legal Guidance, Violent crime (The Crown Prosecution Service).