Constructive Manslaughter: Definition, Elements and Leading ...

Introduction

Constructive manslaughter, often called unlawful act manslaughter, is an offence where a death is caused by a defendant committing a criminal act that is dangerous on an objective test. It does not require an intention to kill or cause serious injury. Instead, liability arises where:

• there is a separate criminal act (not a civil wrong or an omission),
• that act would be recognised by a sober and reasonable person as carrying a risk of some physical harm,
• and the act causes the death.

The defendant needs the mens rea for the base offence only; they need not foresee death or even injury. This guide sets out the elements, the objective test, how causation works, and the leading cases in England and Wales.

What You’ll Learn

• The definition and elements of constructive (unlawful act) manslaughter
• What counts as the base unlawful act and what does not
• How the objective dangerousness test works
• How foreseeability and victim characteristics are treated
• Causation rules, including chains of events and intervening acts
• Leading cases such as R v Church, DPP v Newbury and Jones, R v Dawson, R v Watson, R v Lamb, and more
• Practical steps to analyse problem questions and common pitfalls

Core Concepts

Definition and Elements

Constructive manslaughter requires:

1. Unlawful act

   • The defendant must commit a separate criminal offence. Torts or purely civil wrongs are insufficient (see older authority such as R v Franklin (1883)).
   • The offence must be a positive act. An omission will not do for this offence (R v Lowe [1973]).
   • The prosecution must prove the actus reus and mens rea of the base offence. If the mens rea of the base crime is missing, the manslaughter charge fails (R v Lamb [1967]).

2. Dangerousness (objective)

   • The act must be dangerous on an objective test: would all sober and reasonable people recognise a risk of some physical harm? The harm need not be serious (R v Church [1966]; DPP v Newbury and Jones [1977]).
   • The defendant’s own foresight is not required.

3. Causation

   • The unlawful and dangerous act must cause the death in fact and in law. The chain of causation must not be broken by a free, informed and voluntary act of another person (see R v Kennedy (No 2) [2007] on drug supply).

4. Mens rea

   • The defendant needs the mens rea for the base offence only. There is no need to prove foresight of harm, let alone death.

Two further points often tested:

• The base offence may be directed at property rather than a person, provided a sober and reasonable person would foresee a risk of some physical harm to someone (R v Goodfellow [1986]).
• You take your victim as you find them (the thin skull rule). Once the dangerousness threshold is met, unexpected frailty does not excuse the defendant.

The Unlawful Act Requirement

• A criminal offence must be established independently of the death. Examples include assault or battery, criminal damage, arson, robbery or burglary.
• Civil wrongs are not enough (R v Franklin).
• The base offence must be complete. If, for example, there is no assault because the victim does not apprehend immediate violence or the defendant’s mistake means they lack the necessary mens rea, then there is no unlawful act on which to build manslaughter (R v Lamb).

Key practical filters:

• Ask: is there a positive criminal act? If not, consider gross negligence manslaughter instead.
• Check that all elements (including mens rea) of the base offence are proved.
• Consider whether the act was directed at a person or property; both can qualify, but there must be a risk of some physical harm to a person.

The Objective Dangerousness Test

• The classic statement is from R v Church: would all sober and reasonable people inevitably recognise that the act exposed another person to at least the risk of some harm?
• The test is objective. In DPP v Newbury and Jones, teenage defendants dropped a paving slab from a bridge onto a train; the House of Lords confirmed there is no need to show the defendants foresaw harm.
• “Some harm” suffices. It need not be the precise harm that occurred, nor does it need to be serious. Later cases such as R v JM & SM [2012] confirm that the reasonable person only needs to foresee a risk of some physical harm.

Foreseeability and Victim Characteristics

• The reasonable person is taken to know the circumstances that the defendant knew or ought to have known at the time. In R v Dawson (1985), a petrol station attendant died of a heart attack after an attempted robbery; the conviction was quashed because a reasonable person without knowledge of the victim’s heart condition would not foresee physical harm beyond transient shock.
• If, during the incident, the defendant becomes aware of the victim’s vulnerability, that knowledge feeds into the objective assessment. In R v Watson [1989], confronting an elderly occupant during a burglary made the risk of physical harm apparent to the reasonable person.

In summary: the risk must be of some physical harm to someone, viewed through the eyes of a reasonable person with the defendant’s contemporaneous knowledge. Psychological harm alone is not enough; the risk must be physical, though it can be minor.

Causation and Chains of Events

• Factual causation: the “but for” test.
• Legal causation: the unlawful act must be a significant and operating cause of death. It need not be the sole or main cause.

Single transaction/chains of events:

• R v Church shows that where a series of acts forms a single transaction, the court may treat them together for liability.
• The principle also appears in cases like R v Le Brun [1991] and R v Thabo Meli [1954], where the combination of acts and continuing intent supported liability despite changes in mental state or mistaken beliefs about the victim’s condition.

Intervening acts:

• A free, informed and voluntary act by the victim may break the chain. In R v Kennedy (No 2) [2007], the victim’s voluntary self-injection of drugs broke causation, so the supplier was not liable for manslaughter.
• By contrast, where the defendant administers the drug (e.g., R v Cato [1976]), causation is made out.

The thin skull rule applies once dangerousness is established: if some physical harm is foreseeable, the defendant remains liable even if the harm is unexpectedly severe due to the victim’s condition.

Key Examples or Case Studies

• R v Lamb [1967]
  Two friends played with a revolver. The defendant believed it would not fire; his friend did not apprehend violence. There was no assault (and therefore no unlawful act), so the manslaughter conviction was quashed. Lesson: prove the base offence with its mens rea.

• R v Church [1966]
  After knocking a woman unconscious, the defendant threw her into a river believing she was dead; she drowned. The Court of Appeal approved the objective dangerousness test and treated the acts as a single transaction causing death.

• DPP v Newbury and Jones [1977]
  Teenage defendants dropped a paving slab from a bridge, killing a guard on a passing train. The House of Lords confirmed the test is objective; there is no need to show that the defendants foresaw harm.

• R v Dawson (1985) and R v Watson [1989]
  In Dawson, the reasonable person without knowledge of a heart condition would not foresee physical harm; conviction quashed. In Watson, once the defendant realised the occupant was elderly, the risk of physical harm became apparent; that knowledge is attributed to the reasonable person for the dangerousness test.

• R v Goodfellow [1986]
  The defendant committed arson to be rehoused, causing deaths. The base unlawful act can be directed at property, provided a reasonable person would foresee a risk of some physical harm to someone.

• R v Kennedy (No 2) [2007]
  Supplying a class A drug for self-injection did not cause death where the victim freely and voluntarily injected themselves. The voluntary act broke the chain of causation; conviction quashed.

• R v Mitchell [1983]
  The defendant pushed a man in a queue who fell onto an elderly woman, who later died. Liability does not require the act to be aimed at the eventual victim; it is enough that a reasonable person would foresee a risk of some physical harm to someone.

Practical Applications

• Use a structured four-step test

1. Identify the base offence: is there a separate criminal act (not a tort and not an omission)?
2. Confirm mens rea for the base offence: if the base crime fails, the manslaughter charge falls with it.
3. Apply the objective dangerousness test: would a sober and reasonable person, with the defendant’s contemporaneous knowledge, foresee a risk of some physical harm to someone?
4. Prove causation: factual and legal causation with no break in the chain.

• Common pitfalls to avoid

• Treating civil wrongs or omissions as sufficient: they are not (Franklin; Lowe).

• Mixing in the defendant’s subjective foresight: the test is objective (Newbury and Jones).

• Ignoring evolving knowledge during the incident: later-acquired awareness of vulnerability counts (Watson).

• Treating psychological harm alone as enough: the risk must be of some physical harm (Dawson; JM & SM).

• Overlooking intervening acts: free and informed acts may break the chain (Kennedy).

• Forgetting the thin skull rule: once some physical harm is foreseeable, unexpected frailty does not save the defendant.

• Practical pointers for problem questions

• Start with the base offence and tick off each element before turning to manslaughter.

• Quote the Church test briefly and apply the facts to what a reasonable person would recognise.

• Map the timeline: what did the defendant know at each point, and when did the risk become clear?

• Test causation with alternatives: would the death have occurred but for the act? Is the act still a substantial and operating cause?

• Where death follows long after the act, note that the “year and a day” rule has been abolished by the Law Reform (Year and a Day Rule) Act 1996.

• In drug cases, ask who administered the drug and whether the victim’s act was free and voluntary.

Summary Checklist

• Separate criminal act proved (not a tort; not an omission)
• Mens rea for the base offence established
• Objective dangerousness: risk of some physical harm to someone
• Knowledge for the test includes what the defendant learned during the incident
• Factual and legal causation made out
• No novus actus interveniens (e.g., voluntary self-injection may break the chain)
• Thin skull rule applies once danger of some harm is present
• Property-directed offences can qualify if a risk of physical harm to a person is foreseeable
• Use Church and Newbury and Jones for the test; Dawson and Watson for knowledge and vulnerability; Kennedy for intervening acts

Quick Reference