Involuntary Manslaughter Case Study System

Involuntary manslaughter
case study
SystemJP
[Pick the date]

Contents
Introduction...........................................................................................................................................1
Involuntary manslaughter......................................................................................................................1
Manslaughter by an unlawful and dangerous act..............................................................................3
Manslaughter by gross negligence activities.....................................................................................4
Conclusion.............................................................................................................................................6
References.............................................................................................................................................7

Introduction
Objective of this report is to find the potential responsibility implies on Edwin and Georgina
for the unintentional death Fahzad and Krik. This report aims to find the liability of the
Edwin and Georgina in entire case, and who among both is more liable for the negligence
their duty. Death of Fahzad and Krik was result of using the drug injection, and Edwin and
Georgina supplied the drugs hence this report will discuss the responsibilities or the death as
involuntary manslaughter because lack of means rea in the given case study1.
Manslaughter in the English Laws is less serious than the act of murder because lack of
intentional death is presence in the manslaughter act and it is possible to happen due to many
conditions. Manslaughter is possible to happen due the self-defence by any criminal
activities, due to negligence or cousin death by recklessness or any unlawful act. This report
will discuss the involuntary manslaughter of Fahzad and Krik caused due the gross
negligence and by an unlawful act din performed by the Edwin and Georgina2. Based in the
deep analysis of the entire scenario this report will discuss the potential responsibilities of the
Edwin and Georgina in legal framework of involuntary manslaughter according the English
law of culpable homicide. Here both Edwin and Georgina both are involuntary involved in
the activities that caused death of Fahzad and Krik. Detailed discussion of the potential
responsibility of both is discussed below;
Involuntary manslaughter
Involuntary manslaughter is possible to arise in case, if intention to kill or murder is lacking
in any case3. Any act accidently casued death or serious injury, which caused death of any
person, falls in the involuntary manslaughter, majorly criminal negligence, and recklessness
1 Liebertpub.com 'Administration Supports Drug Companies Against Overcharge Suits' (2011) 30 BLR
2 Liebertpub.com 'Administration Supports Drug Companies Against Overcharge Suits' (2011) 30 BLR
3 Gareth Iacobucci, 'Health Secretary Orders Review Into Use Of Medical Manslaughter' (2018) BMJ.

are in this activities. For example, A asks B to throw a knife behind the bush, A knows that C
is sitting behind the bushes and knife can cause injury or death of the C. B, is unaware about
the sitting of C hence he throws the knife and it cause death of the C”. In this case B is
involuntary responsible for the death for his criminal negligence. This form of manslaughter
turns in unlawful act for the A and gross negligence for the B. Hence, in the case of drug
injection involuntary manslaughter of Fahzad and Krik, both Edwin and Georgina are
responsible in different ways for involuntary manslaughter4. Selling drug is illegal activity,
uses of drug are harmful for life, both Edwin, Georgina was aware about the issues, and they
willingly acted in that entire scenario. Detailed analysis of their acts and impact of their
activities as deaths falls under the following involuntary manslaughter;
Manslaughter by an unlawful and dangerous act
Under English Law, as described in the case of R v Creamer a person causing actions
knowingly about the harmful impact of their actions perform the acts and this act finally
cause death or any other injury to the person falls in the Manslaughter by an unlawful and
dangerous act, but the death was not intend by the defendant. The constructive manslaughter
is another word used for describing the Manslaughter by an unlawful and dangerous act
although defendant have no intention to cause death of the people but one is aware about the
issues possible to cause death of the person falls in the grounds5. The important essentials
describing the act in Manslaughter by an unlawful and dangerous act are as follows;
1. The act must be intentional
2. The act must be unlawful
3. Act must lead reasonable person to feel or understand that other person is at risk and
4. The act must cause of death
4 Gareth Iacobucci, 'Health Secretary Orders Review Into Use Of Medical Manslaughter' (2018) BMJ.
5 'R v Stone and Dobinson (1977) QB 354 64 Cr.

Edwin in the discussed scenario was responsible for the involuntary manslaughter because
selling the drug is illegal but he sells it to Fahzad and indirectly to Georgina that,
consumption of drug is harmful and possible to cause death of any person. Edwin was aware
about it but he intentionally sold the drug that caused death of the Fahzad. Here Edwin was
intend to sell the drug, this caused health issues and lead death of the Fahzad hence Edwin
was in guilty of selling drug that caused death of the Fahzad and Krik as well. Here Edwin is
liable to get punishment decided by the court in the Manslaughter by an unlawful and
dangerous act of involuntary manslaughter. As in the case of R v Kennedy victim asked the
defendant to help him in sleeping, defendant gave him an injection of heroin kanoing it was
harmful, injecting with the drug caused death to the victim6. Hence court held defendant
responsible for the death if victim.
Manslaughter by gross negligence activities
Negligence includes act of ignorance to any condition, which represent the situation of harm
to any person. According to the English law negligence is an act of ignorance by the person
who is statutory or by neighbourly nature owes a duty of care, falls in the criminal negligence
and this is a serious issue7. According the English law, such acts are entitled to get
punishment by the court if negligence caused death of the person or any other serious injury
to nay person8. Defendants in such cases are in highly reliable to perform duty of care and
their negligence cased death of the victim and the court of Criminal Appeal states that gross
negligence manslaughter essential to include the following elements;
1. the offender owing a responsibility to the defunct to take care;
6 Vaughan J, 'Gross Negligence Manslaughter And The Healthcare Professional' (2016) 98 BRCSE
7 Tony Storey, 'Unlawful And Dangerous' (2017) 81 JCL
8 Stanford Law Review, 'A New Test For Involuntary Manslaughter In California: Criminal Law.
Homicide. Manslaughter. Degree Of Negligence Required For Involuntary Manslaughter' (1956) 8
SLR.

2. the offender broken this obligation;
3. the breach caused the death of the defunct; and
4. the offender's inattention was gross, that is, it presented such a disrespect for the life
and
5. security of the others and it amounted to a crime or an act committed in amount to
cause death and deserve punishment for the acts
In the given case study Georgina being in cousin relation of Krik was in duty of care to him,
when she noticed symptoms of health issues or nervousness in Krick, she was in duty to call a
doctor to treat Krik9. In place of calling a doctor, she made him fall asleep and this caused
death of Krik, because overdoses of the drug buy the injection made Krik restless, lack of
timely treatment caused death10. Hence Georgina found guilty in the gross negligence act
committed death to her cousin and it falls in the involuntary manslaughter and it have enough
amount of act punishable in the Court of Criminal Appeal in the English law. To care for
definite distinct classes of abandoned kinsfolks, e.g. paternities must look after their reliant
broods, partners must take care of each other, and same in the other relations as in R V Stone
and Dobinson, court held couple responsible to take effective care of the elderly woman11.
Conclusion
Based on the detailed discussion of the case study and related cases this report concludes that
involuntary manslaughter is an act that lead or caused death or any serious injury to the
person leading the death and it is also a crime according the English law. This report has
detailed analysis of the death caused due to the involuntary manslaughter by the Edwin and
Georgina, both were in activities that intentionally caused death of Fahzad and Krik in the
9 R v Bateman [1925] Cox 33, [1925], 19 Cr All ER Rep 45 (Cox 33, [1925]).
10 Terence Morris and Louis Blom-Cooper, Fine Lines And Distinctions (Waterside Press 2011).
11 Jacqueline Martin and Tony Storey, Unlocking Criminal Law (Routledge 2015).

criminal duty of care and failure of their act lead the death. Drug injections and selling of the
drug is harmful for humanity, both Edwina, Georgina was aware about buying, and selling of
drug is illegal and ethically wrong. Georgina ignored her duty of care due to the threat of
being caught by the police, as already she had been facing many issues with her image but
calling a doctor for the treatment was her liability avoidance of such activities leas the
involuntary manslaughter.

References
Liebertpub.com 'Administration Supports Drug Companies Against Overcharge Suits' (2011)
30 BLR
Iacobucci G, 'Health Secretary Orders Review Into Use Of Medical Manslaughter' (2018)
BMJ
Martin J, and Storey T, Unlocking Criminal Law (Routledge 2015)
Morris T, and Blom-Cooper L, Fine Lines And Distinctions (Waterside Press 2011)
Stanford Law Review, 'A New Test For Involuntary Manslaughter In California: Criminal
Law. Homicide. Manslaughter. Degree Of Negligence Required For Involuntary
Manslaughter' (1956) 8 SLR
Storey T, 'Unlawful And Dangerous' (2017) 81 JCL
Vaughan J, 'Gross Negligence Manslaughter And The Healthcare Professional' (2016) 98
BRCSE
R v Bateman [1925] Cox 33, [1925], 19 Cr All ER Rep 45 (Cox 33, [1925])
'R v Stone and Dobinson (1977) QB 354 64 Cr