Criminal Law: Detailed Analysis of Unlawful Manslaughter and Mens Rea

This assignment delves into the intricacies of criminal law, specifically focusing on unlawful manslaughter and the concept of mens rea. It examines the legal definitions and elements of unlawful manslaughter, highlighting the requirement for a dangerous and unlawful act causing death, along with the presence of mens rea. The analysis incorporates relevant case law, such as R v Mitchell and R v Cato, to illustrate the application of these principles. The assignment explores the significance of consent in cases of manslaughter and the relevance of the defendant's knowledge of potential harm. Furthermore, it contrasts the mens rea requirements in different scenarios, using R v Dawson to illustrate the importance of the defendant's awareness of the victim's condition. The assignment concludes by applying these legal principles to provided case studies, determining the liability of individuals involved in deaths resulting from heroin overdose and heart attacks, considering the presence or absence of mens rea in each situation.

Running head: CRIMINAL LAW
Criminal Law
Name of the Student
Nam of the University
Author Note

1CRIMINAL LAW
Question a)
In the given case study emphasis has been laid upon the issues relating to the unlawful
act of manslaughter. It is noteworthy to mention that for the purpose of the issue, the concepts
relating to unlawful act and unlawful manslaughter needs to be discussed. According to the
provisions of Section 1 of the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007,
unlawful manslaughter can be defined as the act committed by a person causing death to the
other person with the means of dangerous and unlawful act. In this regard an unlawful act on
manslaughter is established when any act is based upon criminal activity. However for the act to
be unlawful and related to manslaughter it is necessary that the act must be:
 Dangerous.
 Must give rise to substantial cause of death.
 Mens Rea.
It can be stated that manslaughter gives rise to the concept of unlawful act which is
associated with a criminal activity. In R v Mitchell1 the Court of Appeal held that in order to
establish the criminal activity of manslaughter it is mandatory to prove that the suspect has
pledged an unlawful act, the activity was so dangerous that any person with sound mind would
consider it to be harmful, the act can cause substantial death, that he crime was committed with
an intention to cause harm. The Law Commission in its report- Legislating the Criminal
Code Involuntary Manslaughter 19962, analyzed the leading offences associated with the
concept of manslaughter and established the principles of constructive manslaughter. As stated
by the Law Commission, it is not possible for a reasonable man to foresee the consequences of
his act. In other words, a person should not be held liable for the death of another person which
1 [1983] QB 741
2 'Still Killing With Impunity: Corporate Criminal Law Reform In The UK' (Taylor & Francis, 2018)
<http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14774003.2013.11667790> accessed 6 January
2018.

2CRIMINAL LAW
he did not intend or envisage and which would not have been expected by a person of sound
mind.
In the given scenario it can be observed that Keith and Ginger being heroin addicts
experimented on Kurt and Janis with heroin with their consent. However it can be seen that the
dose of heroin as prepared and injected by Keith was contaminated and as a result of this both
Janis and Kurt died as a result of heroin overdose. It was seen that later on Keith attempted to
dispose the dead bodies of Kurt and Janis. Based on the understandings of the provided case
study, it can be stated that Keith has committed unlawful act of manslaughter associated with
dangerous and unlawful activity which in modern context is defined as constructive
manslaughter. In the given case study it is mentioned that Keith injected the dose of heroin into
both Kurt and Janis with their prior consent. However it has been established in R v Cato3 that
the prior approval of the sufferer shall not avert the act from being unlawful. In R v Cato, it was
seen that Mr. Cato and the victim prepared their own heroin doses and injected into each other.
In this case Mr. Cato was held liable for manslaughter and was convicted according to the
provisions of Section 23 of the Offences against the Person Act 18614. It was retained by the
Judge that heroin is a dangerous substance which can cause death if overused in any way. It
was held that the injection of heroin is associated with the cause of death and in order to
establish it, it is important to trace out that whether manslaughter has taken place or not. In this
case the victim’s consent taken by Mr. Cato before the injection of heroin however it was held
by the jurists that such consent was purely irrelevant in this case. Mr. Cato claimed that heroin
is not a noxious thing and do not give rise to malicious administration under the provisions of
Section 23 of the Offences against the Person Act 18615. It was held by the Judge in R v Cato
3 [1976] 1 WLR 110
4 'Serious Violence By People With Mental Illnessjournal Of Interpersonal Violence - Sandra
Flynn, Cathryn Rodway, Louis Appleby, Jenny Shaw, 2014' (Journals.sagepub.com, 2018)
<http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0886260513507133> accessed 6 January 2018.
5 Unlawful And Dangerousthe Journal Of Criminal Law - Tony Storey, 2017'
(Journals.sagepub.com, 2018)

3CRIMINAL LAW
that the act of injection of heroin was such that it will cause substantial death. Secondly, it was
held that the consent of the victim was not a relevant facto in his case and therefore such
consent cannot be used as a defense to manslaughter. Thirdly, it was held that the possession
of heroin was unlawful and Mr. Cato kept the injection of heroin in his possession even after
having knowledge about its harmful consequences. Finally it was established that heroin is a
harmful substance and is described as a noxious thing for the purposes of Section 23 of the
Offences against the Person Act 18616. It was held that since the administration acted
deliberately and therefore it was not required to find the scope of maliciousness.
The findings of the abovementioned case law can be used to establish the point that
whether Keith is liable for the death of Kurt and Janis. In this regard it can be stated that, Keith
was aware of the fact that heroin is potentially harmful substance which can cause death if
overdosed. However even after knowing about the consequences of the injection of such
harmful substance Keith kept them in possession and injected it on his Kurt and Janis. It can be
observed that though Kurt and Janis gave their consent however such consent is irrelevant in
this case. Finally, it can be stated that Keith is liable for the deaths of Kurt and Janis and has
committed the unlawful act of manslaughter.
Question b)
Mens rea can be defined as the mental element which is an important concept in
establishing the rules of substantive criminal law. The conception of mens rea was derived from
the maxim “actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea.” The concept of mens rea is an essential
ingredient in order to establish criminal offence. In order to establish the fact that the accused
have committed the criminal offence with a guilty mind it is required to establish that the
<http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0022018317694715> accessed 6 January 2018.
6 Current Issue, 'Territorial Jurisdiction And Criminalization | University Of Toronto Law Journal'
(Utpjournals.press, 2018) <http://www.utpjournals.press/doi/abs/10.3138/utlj.1117-3> accessed
6 January 2018.

4CRIMINAL LAW
accused have committed the crime with an intention. In this regard it is important to prove that
the accused have committed the crime by foreseeing its consequences along with a criminal
intention. The concept of mens rea also applies to unlawful act of manslaughter. It is pertinent
that the unlawful act of men rea is associated with the intention of the accused and
recklessness depending on the case. In some cases it has been observed that he accused do
not realize that their acts could cause serious harm to the victim. It has been stated in R v
Lamb7 that if no mens rea has been established for the unlawful act then the respondent shall
not be accountable.
The importance of mens rea in the concept of unlawful act of manslaughter can be
explained with the help of a similar case study. In R v Dawson8 it was observed that the
accused approached a petrol station which was in the possession of a 50 year old man. The
accused along with a gang attempted robbery with the help of imitation gun. The accused along
with his gang demanded money however they did not touch the attendant. The attendant had
serious pre-existing hear condition and he died due to the mishap created by the accused and
his gang. The accused was not aware of such health condition of the accused. The accused
was charged with unlawful act of manslaughter and convicted for the same. It was held by the
Court that the accused have committed the crime without knowing the consequences. The
defendant had no knowledge regarding the pre-existing heart condition of the station assistant
and therefore he had not committed the crime with a guilty mind. The appeal of the defendant
was allowed on the ground that the act of the defendant was not as such to give rise to unlawful
act. An act in order to be unlawful must be dangerous and the defendant should be able to
foresee the consequences of such dangerous act. The act was not considered to be dangerous
by the Court of Justice on the ground that any reasonable person would not consider the act to
be dangerous.
7 (1967) 2 QB 981
8 (1985) 81 Cr App R 150

5CRIMINAL LAW
In the present case study it can be observed that Ginger went to confront Lenny, the
person who provided them with the heroin. It was observed that during such meeting with
Lenny, Ginger became enraged and slammed his fist against the desk of Lenny. Lenny was in
his 60’s and was suffering from serious heart condition which was unknown to Ginger. Lenny
died due to sudden heat attack due to Ginger’s cause of action.
Based on the understandings of the concept of mens rea, it can be stated that Ginger
was not aware of the prevailing heart condition of Lenny. The act committed by Lenny cannot be
considered as dangerous as any reasonable man in common would not consider such act to be
dangerous. In this regard, it can be stated that Lenny did not foresee the consequences that
could arise as a result of his act.
It can therefore be established that Ginger is not liable for the death of Lenny.

6CRIMINAL LAW
Bibliography:
Current Issue, 'Territorial Jurisdiction And Criminalization | University Of Toronto Law Journal'
(Utpjournals.press, 2018) <http://www.utpjournals.press/doi/abs/10.3138/utlj.1117-3> accessed
6 January 2018
R V Cato [1976] 1 WLR 110
R V Dawson (1985) 81 Cr App R 150
R V Lamb 1967 2 QB 981
R v Mitchell [1983] QB 741
'Serious Violence By People With Mental Illnessjournal Of Interpersonal Violence - Sandra
Flynn, Cathryn Rodway, Louis Appleby, Jenny Shaw, 2014' (Journals.sagepub.com, 2018)
<http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0886260513507133> accessed 6 January 2018
'Still Killing With Impunity: Corporate Criminal Law Reform In The UK' (Taylor & Francis, 2018)
<http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14774003.2013.11667790> accessed 6 January
2018
'Unlawful And Dangerousthe Journal Of Criminal Law - Tony Storey, 2017'
(
Journals.sagepub.com,2018)<http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0022018317694715
> accessed 6 January 2018

7CRIMINAL LAW