1. ‘’The law relating to involuntary manslaughter continues to be muddled and unjust. Reform
of this type of manslaughter is overdue’’. Assess the accuracy of this statement.
The 17th century definition of murder by Lord Coke states that murder is the ‘’unlawful
killing of a human in being, under the Queens peace in any country of the realm with malice
aforethought expressed or implied.’’ But in involuntary manslaughter the ‘malice
aforethought’ isn’t present so the mens rea for murder isn’t there. But there are a number
of types of manslaughter that a defendant can be found guilty of.
The first type of involuntary manslaughter is Gross Negligent Manslaughter. Within this a
person must have a duty of care which is either contractual, relationship, assumed or duty
in a dangerous situation. For this to be breached, duty of care must be diminished. In the
case of Stone and Dobinson there was a relationship duty of care. A man and his wife let
their ill aunt live with them. She died of starvation and Stone was found guilty of not getting
medical help which could have saved her life. This could also be assumed because in taking
her into their home she was their responsibility. In Murjuru a woman left her baby in the
care of her knowingly abusive partner. She too was found guilty as she had a duty of care to
look after her child. Likewise in Gibbins and Proctor, it was the parents responsibility to feed
and care for their child. They were found guilty. In all these cases the lack of care was so
gross to be criminal as death wouldn’t have occurred if the right care had been taken. This is
just because in situations where the victims were so young or ill to look after themselves as
a relative, they should have taken better care, not just legally but also morally. A contractual
duty of care such as in Adamoko is where a people are paid like doctors and teachers and it
is their responsibility to look after people. Like in Pittwood the D was in charge of closing the
gates on a level crossing. He failed to carry out the duty he was paid for and death occurred.
In a dangerous situation such as Wacker he had a duty of care to look after the illegal
immigrants in his van. By closing the air vent he was guilty as he behaved dangeously. This
was confirmed in Wiloughby. This in itself is muddled as there are so many categories in
which involuntary manslaughter fit into. This is confusing for anyone especially a jury. On
top of the different types of care, it also has to be established whether the duty of care was
breached and was it so bad as to be criminal. This can also lead to being unjust as it can be
debated as for assumed duty of care for instance, whether you should be liable for the
looking after another even though it isn’t really morally your duty to.
The next type of involuntary manslaughter is Unlawful Act. Here, the defendant is guilty if
he kills by doing an act which is unlawful and dangerous but he didn’t have the mens rea to
kill or harm. In Goodfellow, D was in rent arrears so set fire to his house to make it look like
it had been hit with a petrol bomb. But the fire got out of control and 3 people died. He was
found guilty and the COA upheld conviction even though the D had not meant to cause the
deaths. This may be thought to be not just. He never meant to kill anyone and never had the
mens rea to even harm. What he did was dangerous but he obviously was reckless in his
actions of not seeing that danger and death could occur. Other cases where the D did a
dangerous unlawful act were Newbury and Jones, Church and Larkin. In Lamb two men of
low intelligence were playing with a gun not understanding how the mechanism worked.
Death occurred after D aimed the gun at the other but there had been no assault, no crime
so the D was found not guilty. This contradicts with Goodfellow resulting in the law on
manslaughter seeming to be muddled and confusing. Here the D was found guilty even

2. though he never meant to kill. But in Lamb the D never meant to kill either and was found
not guilty. They both committed a dangerous act but got different verdicts. There is no
justice in this as there is no consistency. Reform may be needed in order to get people the
justice they deserve.
Corporate manslaughter is where liability is found within a corporation. In P&O Ferries the
case collapsed as it was too difficult to establish where the responsibility laid and prove that
they had taken inadequate safety precautions. Many problems arise when it needs to be
decided who the corporate mind is. But in R v Kite it was easy to find out who was
responsible as the company was so small. In Tesco v Natrass the company was found guilty
as a whole over one manager’s failure to place price tags on items. This is unjust because a
company shouldnt be found liable because one person was negligent and failed to do their
job. Again this can cause confusion as to where the responsibility came from. The reform of
this act would be beneficial because it would lead to companies saving money and their
reputation. It would be fair to punish the person responsible rather the company as a
whole.
The final type of involuntary manslaughter is subjective reckless. Here, the D sees a risk and
takes it knowing that death could occur. This was thought to have been incorporated into
the other types of manslaughter but in Lidar this was proved wrong. Here the D drove his
car with the victim leaning in through the car window. A reasonable person would have
considered this dangerous and even the D must have seen the risk of death. Even though
the verdict was just, it is muddling for a jury. Whether someone is reasonable depends on
their individual personality.
In conclusion I think that the law relating to involuntary manslaughter is muddled but I
would say it is unjust. In 2005, the Law Commission decided that reckless manslaughter
should be called 2nd degree murder and there should be 2 types of involuntary manslaughter. The
first is the unlawful killing where the D foresees the risk and takes it. The second is that the D’s
actions fall below the standards of a reasonable man and this leads to death. Death should be
obvious in the D’s position. However this isn’t much different from the current law on involuntary
manslaughter and changing it again would lead to even more confusion. To me, this law is perfectly
adequate.