Often in judicial practice, lawyers are faced with cases where there is no mens rea or malicious intent in the act of murder. In such a situation, the defendant is usually accused of committing constructive, reckless, or gross negligence manslaughter, which are types of involuntary manslaughter.
The punishment for involuntary manslaughter is usually less severe than for premeditated murder, which is a positive side to the fact that UK legislation gives due regard to the notion of mens rea. At the same time, the introduction of the concept of involuntary manslaughter expanded the possibilities for bringing to justice the offenders who committed a serious crime without malicious intent. This paper aims to explain constructive, reckless, and gross negligence manslaughter, using cases and evaluate the actus reus and mens rea in these types of manslaughter.
Constructive Manslaughter
Constructive manslaughter or unlawful act manslaughter is a type of involuntary manslaughter. In this type of murder, the offender did not have a mens rea to kill, but the death happened in the circumstances when the offender was committing an unlawful act. In addition, the offender who can be convicted of constructive manslaughter is assumed to have understood that his actions will lead to the victim’s death. In other words, the offender’s actions must be dangerous enough to be perceived by a reasonable person to cause the death of the victim.
Constructive manslaughter is also called unlawful homicide. A constructive manslaughter is a form of manslaughter when unlawful homicide has been committed in which the accused did not have the mens rea of the killing. There are two types of manslaughter; constructive manslaughter occurs when a charged commits an unlawful, dangerous act resulting in death; if the accused commits a lawful act resulting in death, this may amount to gross negligence.
Constructive manslaughter has three main elements – an unlawful act, which must be dangerous and cause death. Various cases detail the nuances associated with the observance of the presence of each element in the actus reus. The decisions in these cases create the basis for the generally accepted legal interpretation of the fundamental law, which describes involuntary manslaughters. R v Franklin (1883) 15 Cox CC 163 illustrates the need for the unlawful act against the criminal law, and other cases, such as R v Lamb (1967) 2 QB 981, R v Scarlett (1993) 98 Cr App 290, and R v Arobekieke (1988) Crim LR 314 detail that all elements of the unlawful act should be present in the actus reus. The R v Goodfellow (1986) 83 Cr App R 23 case also describes that such unlawful act should not be necessarily directed against a person.
Constructive manslaughter must include an unlawful act that must be dangerous, as illustrated in R v Church (1965) 2 WLR 1220. In particular, the case includes the paragraph, in which the definite meaning for the ‘dangerous’ is provided: “the unlawful act must be such as all sober and reasonable people would inevitably recognize must subject the other person to, at least, the risk of some harm resulting therefrom, albeit not serious harm” (R v Church (1965) 2 WLR 1220). In other words, the alleged damage does not have to be fatal to become an element necessary for an actus reus of constructive manslaughter. Suffice it that the offender might assume some harm was done to the victim.
Another critical element is assessing the actus reus not from the standpoint of the offender but from the perspective of an outside observer when considered in court. In other words, the test for the objectivity of the hazard should be carried out from the position of a sober and reasonable observer, who assesses the situation, taking into account only the information that is obvious during the observation of events. Any extraneous facts that are not obvious to the observer cannot be considered as those that the offender could have foreseen.
A dangerous act implies an act that will inevitably lead to physical harm. At the same time, the defendant’s erroneous opinion regarding the foreseeing of the consequences of his actions should not be attributed to a sober and reasonable observer, from whose point of view the test for the objectivity of the danger is being carried out. At the same time, the unlawful, dangerous act must cause death for the crime to be considered constructive manslaughter.
Reckless Manslaughter
Reckless manslaughter is another type of involuntary murder, although it is sometimes excluded from the typology by experts. There is a widespread opinion that reckless manslaughter refers to the constructive of unlawful, dangerous act manslaughter and gross negligence manslaughter. Stark (2017) notes that it refers to situations where ”
- the defendant’s act or omission caused the death of another person;
- the defendant was aware at the time of acting or omitting that a risk of death or serious injury existed; and
- the relevant risk was taken without adequate justification” (p. 3).
Reckless manslaughter, therefore, has no mens rea for killing or causing severe harm for the victim. At the same time, the actus reus for reckless manslaughter includes the elements of the actus reus for both constructive or gross negligence manslaughter. Therefore, the term is applied to distinguish between voluntary and involuntary manslaughter and is a synonym for involuntary manslaughter.
Gross Negligence Manslaughter
Gross negligence manslaughter refers to involuntary manslaughter and happens when the defendant is ostensibly acting lawfully. In other words, the elements of the unlawful and dangerous activities are absent in the actus reus of gross negligence manslaughter. The defendant must not have a mens rea of causing death, but the death must be caused due to the actions of the defendant. One crucial difference to constructive manslaughter is that gross negligence manslaughter can be caused by omission, while constructive manslaughter cannot. R v Bateman 19 Cr App R 8 is a case that typically illustrates gross negligence manslaughter.
Conclusion
Thus, the constructive, reckless and gross negligence manslaughter was explained using cases, and the actus reus and mens rea in these types of manslaughter were evaluated. These are the three types of involuntary manslaughter; constructive manslaughter features an unlawful and dangerous act that caused the death; gross negligence manslaughter does not feature such an act and can also refer to the death caused by omission. Reckless manslaughter is a synonym to involuntary manslaughter related to both constructive and gross negligence types of manslaughter.
Reference List
R v Franklin (1883) 15 Cox CC 163.
R v Church (1965) 2 WLR 1220.
R v Lamb (1967) 2 QB 981.
R v Goodfellow (1986) 83 Cr App R 23.
R v Arobekieke (1988) Crim LR 314.
R v Scarlett (1993) 98 Cr App 290.
Stark, F. (2017) ‘Reckless manslaughter,’ Criminal Law Review, 2(4), pp. 1-13.