Back
to top
Mens rea for unlawful act manslaughter?
Watch this thread
Announcements
Page 1 of 1
Go to first unread
Skip to page:
spurs9393
Badges:
13
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#1
I know that the actus reus for constructive manslaughter is an unlawful act which would not normally cause death, or even serious injury. However, what is the mens rea? Is it the mens rea for the unlawful act, eg if death resulted from a battery would it be an intention/recklessness as to whether unlawful force would be applied? Or is it just the normal mens rea for manslaughter - recklessness?
I presume it is the mens rea for the unlawful act but just wanted to check. Thanks!
I presume it is the mens rea for the unlawful act but just wanted to check. Thanks!
0
reply
Forum User
Badges:
19
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#2
Report
#2
(Original post by spurs9393)
I know that the actus reus for constructive manslaughter is an unlawful act which would not normally cause death, or even serious injury. However, what is the mens rea? Is it the mens rea for the unlawful act, eg if death resulted from a battery would it be an intention/recklessness as to whether unlawful force would be applied? Or is it just the normal mens rea for manslaughter - recklessness?
I presume it is the mens rea for the unlawful act but just wanted to check. Thanks!
I know that the actus reus for constructive manslaughter is an unlawful act which would not normally cause death, or even serious injury. However, what is the mens rea? Is it the mens rea for the unlawful act, eg if death resulted from a battery would it be an intention/recklessness as to whether unlawful force would be applied? Or is it just the normal mens rea for manslaughter - recklessness?
I presume it is the mens rea for the unlawful act but just wanted to check. Thanks!
Although there may be cases where the defendant's state of mind is relevant to the jury's consideration when assessing the grossness and criminality of his conduct, evidence of his state of mind is not a pre-requisite to a conviction for manslaughter by gross negligence.
For unlawful act manslaughter, you are right, the defendant must have the mens rea for the unlawful act. Although the unlawful act must also be such as sober and reasonable people would regard as subjecting another to the risk of some physical harm, there is no requirement that the defendant realizes there is a risk of physical harm.
1
reply
hotliketea
Badges:
20
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#3
Report
#3
(Original post by spurs9393)
I know that the actus reus for constructive manslaughter is an unlawful act which would not normally cause death, or even serious injury. However, what is the mens rea? Is it the mens rea for the unlawful act, eg if death resulted from a battery would it be an intention/recklessness as to whether unlawful force would be applied? Or is it just the normal mens rea for manslaughter - recklessness?
I presume it is the mens rea for the unlawful act but just wanted to check. Thanks!
I know that the actus reus for constructive manslaughter is an unlawful act which would not normally cause death, or even serious injury. However, what is the mens rea? Is it the mens rea for the unlawful act, eg if death resulted from a battery would it be an intention/recklessness as to whether unlawful force would be applied? Or is it just the normal mens rea for manslaughter - recklessness?
I presume it is the mens rea for the unlawful act but just wanted to check. Thanks!
AR: Any unlawful and dangerous act which causes the death of the victim through causation principles.
MR: The defendant needs to have the original MR for the original unlawful act. DPP v Newbury shows that D need not have personally foreseen any danger of death.
1
reply
Rub3s
Badges:
6
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#4
Report
#4
MR- DPP v Nebury and Jones: D is guilty of manslaughter if it was proved that he intentionally did an act that was unlawful and dangerous and that act caused death.
So, to have the MR of unlawful act manslaughter, D must be guilty of the unlawful act which caused death. I assume this is intention for unlawful act and it is recklessness for gross negligence as the MR for gross egligence is based on the fact that D does not have the intention to kill or cause serious harm?
So, to have the MR of unlawful act manslaughter, D must be guilty of the unlawful act which caused death. I assume this is intention for unlawful act and it is recklessness for gross negligence as the MR for gross egligence is based on the fact that D does not have the intention to kill or cause serious harm?
0
reply
X
Page 1 of 1
Go to first unread
Skip to page:
Quick Reply
