1. Criticisms and Reform of Involuntary Manslaughter
Unit 4 – Task 3

2. General criticisms concerning involuntary manslaughter
It covers a very wide range of conduct
The same offence of involuntary manslaughter covers such a wide range of offences.
The distinction between murder and manslaughter
The distinction between murder and manslaughter is malice aforethought which has not been precisely defined
The confusion between the different types of involuntary manslaughter
The lines are blurred.

3. Specific criticisms relating to unlawful act manslaughter
The persistent difficulties of interpreting the ‘act’ as a crime
For example the cases of, Ariobeke, Cato
Death may be unexpected
For example Larkin only meant to assault his victim and it could be argued that he should therefore only be liable for the crime of assault. The fact that someone died was ‘pure chance’ for which Larkin should not have been held responsible

4. The objective nature of the act
A defendant who did not realise there was risk of any injury is still guilty because of the objective nature of the test.
The distinction between acts and omissions
This may be reasonable when applied to an omission which is simply negligent, but it is difficult to find grounds for excluding liability where an accused deliberately omits to so something and thereby causes death, and especially where that omission is clearly morally wrong

5. The mens rea Causation issues The mens rea is very easy to satisfy
The unlawful act must be the cause of death with no intervening cause to interrupt the chain of causation and particularly whether the act needs to be directed at the victim.

6. Specific criticisms relating to gross negligence manslaughter
The ‘duty’ problem
The civil test for negligence should not be used in criminal cases, as the purpose of the two branches of law is quite different
A duty of care in negligence law is defined on an objective basis, this is not appropriate in criminal law where the defendant’s state of mind should be a key issue for deciding culpability.
Gross negligence
The test for gross negligence manslaughter is circular, in that the jury is directed to convict the defendant if they think his action was criminal

7. The defendant may not have realised there was a risk of harm
A defendant is liable even though he did not realise there was a risk of injury, this is inconsistent with non-fatal offences  
A lack of congruence between criminal liability and moral guilt
Criminal liability and punishment should be linked to moral guilt, i.e. only those who have chosen to cause harm in the sense of intending or knowing that the harm could occur, should be blamed

8. Vagueness of the law
Reform is necessary as the law is not clear.

9. Proposed Reforms
In 1996, the Law Commission produced a report called Legislating the Criminal Code: Involuntary Manslaughter –LCCP No 237

10. The five homicide offences to replace involuntary manslaughter
The proposals were to abolish the existing law on involuntary manslaughter and replace it with five homicide offences
The five homicide offences to replace involuntary manslaughter No
Proposed new offence
Maximum penalty 1
Reckless killing
Life imprisonment 2
Killing by gross negligence
10 years’ imprisonment 3
Killing with the intention to injure or being reckless as to whether injury
7 years’ imprisonment 4
Corporate killing 5
Substantially contributing to a corporate killing

11. In 2006, another report was commissioned (No
In 2006, another report was commissioned (No. 304): Murder, Manslaughter and Infanticide
This report suggested that there should be a 3-tier structure for homicide: First Degree Murder, Second Degree Murder and Manslaughter:
Manslaughter would be either
Killing another person through gross negligence or
Killing another person as a result of a criminal act to or that D was aware carried a serious risk of causing injury
Note ‘criminal act’ would be easier to understand and apply than ‘unlawful act’ as it would add context

12. Conclusion Say whether you think the law needs to be reformed and why?
Discuss which of the proposals (1996 or 2006, or selected proposals from each) you think would be more effective and why.