Involuntary Manslaughter Landmark Rulings
⚖️ What Is Involuntary Manslaughter
Involuntary manslaughter is a form of unlawful killing where the defendant did not intend to kill or cause serious harm, but their actions were criminally negligent or unlawful, leading to a person’s death.
The two main categories are:
Constructive Manslaughter (Unlawful Act Manslaughter) – Death caused by a dangerous and unlawful act, even without intent to harm.
Gross Negligence Manslaughter – Death resulting from a gross breach of duty of care.
🔍 Landmark Cases: Detailed Explanation
1. R v. Church (1966)
Category: Unlawful Act Manslaughter
Facts:
The defendant knocked a woman unconscious during an argument and, thinking she was dead, threw her into a river where she drowned.
Judgment:
The court held that the initial assault was an unlawful and dangerous act, and it caused her death.
Significance:
Established the test for dangerousness:
➤ Would all sober and reasonable people recognise the risk of some harm?
Confirmed liability even if the death wasn’t intended.
2. R v. Lamb (1967)
Category: Constructive Manslaughter
Facts:
Two boys were playing with a revolver. One pointed it at the other as a joke and pulled the trigger, killing him. He didn’t realise the gun would fire.
Judgment:
The court held that since the defendant didn’t commit an unlawful act (no assault — no apprehension of harm), no manslaughter occurred.
Significance:
Clarified that for constructive manslaughter, there must be a complete unlawful act that is also dangerous.
Innocent mistake + no unlawful act = no liability.
3. R v. Adomako (1995)
Category: Gross Negligence Manslaughter
Facts:
An anaesthetist failed to notice a dislodged oxygen tube during surgery. The patient died due to lack of oxygen.
Judgment:
The House of Lords held that this was gross negligence manslaughter due to a serious breach of duty of care.
Significance:
Laid down the modern test for gross negligence manslaughter:
Existence of duty of care
Breach of that duty
Risk of death
Causation
The breach is so gross as to merit criminal punishment
4. R v. Bateman (1925)
Category: Gross Negligence Manslaughter
Facts:
A doctor failed to send a patient to hospital after complications during childbirth, leading to her death.
Judgment:
The court found gross negligence and upheld the conviction.
Significance:
Early formulation of gross negligence test:
➤ “Negligence which shows such disregard for the life and safety of others as to amount to a crime.”
Influenced later rulings like Adomako.
5. R v. Lidar (2000)
Category: Reckless Manslaughter
Facts:
During an altercation, the victim was partially hanging out of a car window. The driver sped off, causing the victim to fall and be killed under the wheels.
Judgment:
The court found reckless manslaughter, as the driver foresaw a risk of serious injury or death and carried on regardless.
Significance:
Demonstrated rare use of recklessness-based manslaughter.
Highlights when subjective recklessness (awareness of risk) can lead to conviction.
6. R v. Kennedy (No. 2) (2007, UKHL)
Category: Constructive Manslaughter (Drug Cases)
Facts:
Kennedy prepared a syringe of heroin and handed it to the victim, who injected himself and died.
Judgment:
The House of Lords held that since the victim voluntarily injected himself, the chain of causation was broken, and Kennedy was not guilty.
Significance:
Key ruling on causation in manslaughter.
The victim’s voluntary action intervened and relieved the defendant of legal responsibility.
7. R v. Misra and Srivastava (2004)
Category: Gross Negligence Manslaughter (Medical)
Facts:
Two junior doctors failed to diagnose and treat a patient’s post-operative infection, leading to his death.
Judgment:
They were convicted of gross negligence manslaughter as they breached their duty of care in a way that created a risk of death.
Significance:
Reaffirmed the Adomako test.
Demonstrated how medical errors can lead to criminal liability if sufficiently serious.
⚖️ Key Legal Tests Summarised
| Type | Test |
|---|---|
| Unlawful Act Manslaughter | Must be a criminal, dangerous act that causes death |
| Gross Negligence Manslaughter | Duty of care + breach + risk of death + causation + grossness = criminal |
| Reckless Manslaughter | Defendant foresaw a risk of death or serious injury and disregarded it |
📚 Summary
| Case | Key Point |
|---|---|
| Church (1966) | Created the “dangerous act” test for manslaughter |
| Lamb (1967) | No unlawful act = no constructive manslaughter |
| Adomako (1995) | Established the modern gross negligence test |
| Bateman (1925) | Early definition of gross negligence |
| Lidar (2000) | Rare example of reckless manslaughter |
| Kennedy (2007) | Broke chain of causation due to voluntary act |
| Misra (2004) | Applied Adomako to medical error case |
✅ Conclusion
Involuntary manslaughter covers a wide range of behaviours where intent to kill is absent, but the outcome is fatal. The courts have developed different tests depending on whether the offence stems from unlawful acts, negligence, or recklessness. The above cases have helped shape the law by clarifying:
What counts as a dangerous act
How causation and foreseeability work
When professional or medical failures cross the threshold into crime
RELATED Blog
comments