• Home
• Order now
• Prices
• How we help
• Press
• Law marking
• Contact us
• Resources
• Log in

Miguel's liability for manslaughter

Discuss Miguel's liability for manslaughter; consider both constructive and gross negligence.

Facts of the case

Angelo and Miguel were drug addicts. Angelo gave money to Miguel to purchase heroin. Upon his return from buying the drug, Miguel prepared a syringe for Angelo, who then injected the concoction into himself. Angelo then fell into a coma. Miguel failed to call for an ambulance because he was worried about the police finding out. Hours later, Roderigo (a neighbour) came round, saw Angelo unconscious on the floor and tried to revive him, inadvertently fracturing one of Angelo's ribs, which then punctured his lung. Angelo died.

The issue is to discover the liability of Miguel for the offences of manslaughter by either gross negligence or through constructive liability.

Issues to consider

Manslaughter is a crime against the common law. It is a serious arrestable offence, triable on indictment only, for which a maximum term of life imprisonment can be imposed.

In this case, Miguel is being charged with involuntary manslaughter , where Miguel is said to have caused the death of Angelo, but is not shown to have the required mens rea for murder (an intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm) as outlined in Moloney which can result on production of a valid special defence for reduction of the charge to voluntary manslaughter. However, in this case, we are concerned with involuntary manslaughter, where the prosecution must prove that Miguel killed Angelo by an unlawful act which was likely to cause bodily harm to Angelo or Miguel killed him through an act of gross negligence.

It is important to recognise there are two elements to the commission of a 'crime', the actus reus and the mens rea. The actus reus involves the establishment of several factors, namely the fact that this is a 'result' crime (required for manslaughter charges) since Angelo died. Furthermore, there are the following elements:

These are:

1) The 'act' itself;
2) The act was committed in legally relevant circumstances; and
3) This caused the prohibited result.
It can be argued in this case that Miguel has the actus reus, since he undertook an 'act' (the purchasing, supply and preparation of heroin), that this was undertaken in legally relevant circumstances (an offence against the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, namely: supplying a controlled drug) and thirdly, this caused a prohibitive result (the death of Angelo).

So, Miguel can be said to have committed the actus reus element. The second concept to establish whether a crime has been commissioned is whether Miguel had the mens rea. In simple terms, this means a 'guilty mind'. Clarkson and Keating stated: "...the process of choosing to commit a crime is a mental one…involving cognition (knowing or realising that a consequence could occur or that a circumstance could exist)…" Mens rea also involves the concept of intention. Parliament has never defined what intention means, but the case of Mohan (1976) interpreted intention as: "… a decision to bring about… (the prohibited consequence)…whether the accused desired that consequence of his act or not…" To explore Moloney further, did the accused foresee the prohibited consequence as a natural consequence of his behaviour? If the answer is yes, then the theory of intention is formed.

It is important to state that recklessness and negligence can also form the basis for mens rea as outlined in Cunningham (recklessness) and Adomako (negligence). These points are crucial on the basis that the requirement of this case is to establish whether Miguel can be convicted (and found guilty) of manslaughter on a basis of constructive liability or through gross negligence.

Each of these issues will now be examined in turn.

Definition of 'Involuntary' Manslaughter

Ashworth in his text, 'Principles of Criminal Law' defined it as "Cases where death has been caused with insufficient fault to justify labelling it (the act) as murder, but with sufficient fault for a manslaughter verdict. 'Involuntary' is therefore used…to distinguish killings from ones which have the necessary intent for murder…"

Manslaughter through constructive liability

Also known as unlawful act manslaughter, there are several judiciary based principles on deciding whether Miguel could be found guilty of this 'type' of manslaughter.

Constructive liability is the offence of manslaughter by the carrying out of an unlawful or dangerous act by the accused. If a reasonable person would have realized the potential risk of harm to the victim, and this act resulted in the victim's death, then the defendant is liable to be convicted.

For Miguel to be found guilty of constructive manslaughter, the prosecution must prove the following points to the jury, namely that Miguel was:

1) committing a crime
2) in committing the crime, he caused Angelo's death and:
3) in what Miguel did was objectively dangerous.

The Crown must also prove that all the elements of a crime relied upon the unlawful act were present. This includes recklessness, which could take into consideration that Miguel was the sole preparer of the heroin injection that Angelo administered to himself.

It can be argued that Miguel was committing a crime, namely the supplying of the heroin (a class A controlled drug) to Angelo. This is an offence under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. Indeed the Court of Appeal in Cato (1976) was prepared to hold that the mere possession of a controlled drug was sufficient.

In Cato, the defendant injected the victim with heroin at her own request. The victim then died. Lord Widgery, CJ stated: "…As matter of law, it was sufficient if the prosecution could establish that it was a cause, provided it was a cause outside of the de minimus range, and effectively bearing upon acceleration of the moment of the victim's death…"

Heroin is not a candy sweet readily available on any supermarket shelf. It has been made a controlled drug for a very good reason; the fact being that it is a very potent opioid drug. Therefore, to a reasonable person, the very act of preparation and injection of heroin is likely to be recognized as carrying substantial risks, one of these being the chance of respiratory failure, coma and or death if an overdose is consumed.

There are, however different limits for different people. Angelo, being a drug addict it could be fairly stated that he had built up a 'resistance' to the heroin that a first time user would certainly die from as a result of using.

It can also be stated that constructive manslaughter is notoriously difficult to prove as outlined in the case of A-G Ref (No 3 of 1994) , in that the prosecution must show that the defendant acted both unlawfully and recklessly.

Can Miguel be said to have acted unlawfully? Yes, is the answer, if one considers he supplied heroin to Angelo. Was the act dangerous? Whilst it may seem obvious to a reasonable person that the act of injection is dangerous, to a drug addict withdrawing from the effects of the drug, the 'dangerousness' concept may be far from their minds. Indeed, the addict may view the art of injecting a class A drug into his veins as an act of mere simplicity to 'survive'.

Dine and Gobert in their text on Criminal Law went on to state: "…this offence (of constructive manslaughter) is built upon another, i.e. death is an incidental result of the unlawful act…"

The Larkin case judgement suggests Miguel may be guilty of constructive manslaughter. Humphreys, J stated: "…Where the act is unlawful and dangerous, and likely to injure the victim, and quite inadvertently the defendant of the act causes the death of the victim, then by that act, the defendant is guilty of manslaughter…"

This view was supported by Lord Salmon, in Church. Referring to the judgement of Larkin, he added: "…Could the defendant be convicted of manslaughter if he did not foresee that his act might cause harm to another? [The answer is] yes…"

It matters not that Miguel might have held 'mistaken belief' that what he was doing (the supplying and preparation of heroin) was not dangerous, as Lord Lane CJ in Ball held this to be irrelevant.

The highly criticised case of Kennedy suggested that the defendant is guilty. In a scenario closely encompassing this case, the defendant supplied the victim with a syringe full of heroin that the victim then injected. The victim died. The defendant was convicted on the basis that he had undertaken the unlawful act of 'encouraging the victim to inject himself.

On the basis of the above mentioned cases, it seems as if Miguel is guilty as charged for manslaughter through constructive liability. However, other case judgements suggest a different stance. In Dalby, the Court of Appeal quashed the conviction of the defendant holding that supply of a controlled drug was insufficient as an 'unlawful' act because it (the act) was not 'directed' at the victim.

Goodfellow interpreted the 'directed at' requirement as meaning only that there must be no 'fresh intervening cause between the act and the death…'

This approach has now been confirmed by the Court of Appeal in Dias. Reiterating Dalby, the Court stated that 'there is no offence of administering a drug to oneself.'

Criticising the decision made in Kennedy, Allen in his Textbook on Criminal Law suggests that "…the victim' voluntary self injection should have been viewed as breaking the chain of causation since the victim was fully aware of what he was injecting into himself…"

Ashworth in his text Principles of Criminal Law readily agrees with the more recent Dias decision. He states: "…If the defendant prepared a syringe for the victim, who then administered it to himself, and this proved fatal, the defendant would not in normal circumstances be guilty of manslaughter either as a principal or as an accomplice…"

It is on this basis that the suggestion is made that Miguel is not guilty of manslaughter through constructive liability. But what of his being guilty of manslaughter through gross negligence?

Manslaughter through 'Gross Negligence'

Gross negligence can be said to be the 'proper' test of liability for cases involving involuntary manslaughter. To be guilty, the defendant must:

1) Be in breach of a 'duty of care' under the ordinary principles of negligence.
2) This negligence must have caused death [to the victim].
3) In jury's opinion, this negligence must have been 'gross' negligence.

So what is 'gross' negligence? Geary in his text, Essential Criminal Law defined it as: "…having due regard to the risk of death involved, was the defendant's conduct so bad as to amount to an omission or a criminal act?"

Why are we asking this question? Because Miguel failed to call for an ambulance when he realised Angelo was in a coma. The reason for this? Because he was scared of the police finding out.

Allen, in his text on Criminal Law asks: "For gross negligence manslaughter, what is the risk which the defendant should have foreseen?"

Lord Hewart in Bateman said: "… [The] negligence of the defendant…must have gone beyond…compensation between subjects and showed such disregard for the life and safety of the victim as to amount to a crime…"

For many years this was the accepted statement on the interpretation of 'gross' negligence. Lord Atkin in Andrews v DPP stated:

"…simple lack of care [on the part of the defendant] is insufficient...reckless suggests an indifference to risk…whereas the defendant may have appreciated the risk and intended to avoid it, yet he has shown such a degree of negligence…"

Did Miguel assume a voluntary duty of care towards Angelo? In the early case of Instan , the judgement of Lord Coleridge, CJ suggests that a defendant's failure to act and get medical attention for the victim was an act of blatant omission on behalf of the defendant. Coleridge CJ stated:

"…It was the…duty…to impart to the deceased as much as was necessary to sustain life…Nor can there be any question that the failure [of the defendant] to discharge his legal duty at least accelerated the death of the deceased if it did not actually cause it…"

In comparison with the relatively late case of Stone & Dobinson , however, the approach on 'duty of care' is entirely different. Geoffrey Lane LJ commented: "…This is one of the situations where the appellants (defendants) were entitled to do nothing; where no duty was cast on them to help, any more than it is to cast on a man to rescue a stranger from drowning…"

The judge went on to say:

"The prosecution have to prove that the defendant's conduct can be described as reckless, that is a reckless disregard of danger to the health and welfare of the victim...mere inadvertence is not enough…The defendant must be proved to be indifferent to an obvious risk of injury to the health of the victim…"

Lord Mackay in Adomako approved the direction given in Stone & Dobinson, but where does this leave Miguel? The House of Lords in the Adomako case went on to set out the test for manslaughter by gross negligence, namely:

1) That the defendant was in breach of a duty of care to the victim
2) That this breach caused the victim's death and
3) That this breach of duty amounted to gross negligence

There are several omissions cases where the defendant can be said to be in breach of a duty of care, where:

1) By agreement between the defendant and the victim (Instan)
2) Assumption of responsibility (Stone & Dobinson)
3) Where the defendant was initially responsible for creating a hazardous situation (Miller)
On the basis of Miller, it can be fairly argued that Miguel was responsible for creating the hazardous situation, namely the supply and preparation of heroin.

What of the decision in Armstrong? The case closely relates to this one, although the Crown concluded that there was little evidence to suggest heroin had been substantial cause of death. Secondly, it was concluded that the very act of the victim injecting himself caused a novus actus interveniens, and therefore, this broke the chain of causation flowing from the defendant's acts.

Furthermore, what of Roderigo's attempts to resuscitate Angelo, and breaking one of his ribs in the process?

Incompetent medical treatment has been found to absolve the defendant of his liability, as outlined in Jordan and Cheshire. In Jordan gross medical treatment was the novus actus, and in Cheshire, the act was deemed to be "potent and independent [of the defendant's acts]…"

However, in Cheshire, Beldam LJ held: "…It will only be in the most…unusual case that such medical treatment can be said to be independent of the acts of the defendant, that it could be regarded in law as being the cause of the victim's death…"

It can be argued, that as an issue of causation, the breaking of the rib would not have occurred had it not been for the injection of the heroin, or for Miguel's lack of attempt to get Angelo to hospital. Also, the 'egg-shell' principle must be remembered, that the defendant must take the victim as one finds them. It can be suggested that Angelo had ribs that were easily broken due to his addiction to heroin.

To refer to the early case of Senior , the defendant was found guilty of manslaughter for refusing to seek medical assistance for the victim. In the recent case of Khan , the court of appeal held that 'duty' situations could be extended to include a duty to summon medical assistance in certain circumstances.

Conclusion

Although it has been fairly stated that Miguel is not to blame for manslaughter through constructive liability, there seems to be a more positive response on the charge of manslaughter through gross negligence. Referring to Adomako, and its previously discussed test for negligence, the fact remains with the jury on how they interpret the judge's direction and the facts of the case as to whether Miguel will be found guilty of manslaughter. In Singh , it was held that "…the circumstances must be such that a reasonably prudent person would have foreseen a serious and obvious risk not merely of injury...but death…" Roderigo noted this when he tried to resuscitate Angelo. Instead of a novus actus, he acted as any reasonable person would, by trying to revive Angelo. It is therefore on this basis, that Miguel could be found guilty of manslaughter.

Bibliography

Allen, M.J., (2001) Elliott & Wood's Cases and Materials on Criminal Law, 8th edn, London, Sweet and Maxwell

Allen, M.J., (2001) Textbook on Criminal Law, 6th edn, Oxford, OUP

Ashworth, A., (2003) Principles of Criminal Law, 4th edn, Oxford, Oxford University Press

Clarkson, C M V and Keating, H M (2003) Criminal Law: Text and Materials, 5th edn, London, Sweet and Maxwell

Dine, J and Gobert, J., (2000) Cases & Materials on Criminal Law, 3rd edn, London, Blackstone Press

Fionda J and Bryant M., (2000), Criminal Law, 2nd edn, London, Cavendish Publishing

Geary, R., (1998), Essential Criminal Law, 2nd edn, London, Cavendish Publishing

Martin, J and Turner, C., (2001) Criminal Law, Great Britain, Hodder and Stoughton

Padfield, N., (2000) Criminal Law, 2nd edn, London, Butterworths

Sampson, F. (2005) Blackstone's Police Manual 2005: Crime. 7th edn. Oxford, Oxford University Press

Tweet

Do you need to translate this page?

To translate this page into another language, please select the correct language from the box below.

LOOKING FOR SPECIFIC HELP? We can help you in many law areas!

Did you know that we also provide a service that can help you in other law areas such as:

• GCSE Law Coursework
• A Level Law Coursework
• Law Essay Writing
• BVC/BPTC Writing
• LLM Writing
• LPC letter drafting
• Opinion Writing
• English Legal System
• And much more!

Want to see what our customers say about us? Click here to watch our video.

Want to become a writer for Law Teacher and earn up to £4,000 per month? Click here now!

Secure your law degree, order your custom law essay right now!

Order Now. It takes less than 2 minutes.

1. * Name   
2. * Email   
3. * Phone   

1. * Your essay question 
   (please give as much detail as possible)  

Copyright © 2012 All Answers Ltd. All Answers Ltd is a company registered in England and Wales with Company Registration No: 4964706 VAT Registration No: 842417633 - Law Teacher - The law essay professionals