Q.

Explain and critically evaluate the law of constructive manslaughter giving

suggestion for reform.
Constructive manslaughter falls under the category of involuntary manslaughter. In layman
terms it means a killing which was not chose by the Defendant. In Stephen’s History of the
criminal law of England manslaughter is stated as a residue of murder. Meaning that if we
take away the components of intention to kill or cause GBH we are left with involuntary
manslaughter. Which have received its share of criticism over the period of time. In
constructive manslaughter defendant causes death of the victim by a criminal act or
dangerous act. There is no need to proof intent or recklessness. It is enough that a sober
person would have seen the act as being dangerous. However, chain of causation is
established in order to convict.It was in 1937 Andrew V DPP in which the mens rea of
constructive manslaughter was widened. It was stated that only the act which are unlawful in
nature could be the bases for constructive manslaughter. Constructive Manslaughter is said to
be unlawful and dangerous act. But now the question arises what constitutes as dangerous?
How can an act be qualified as being dangerous? Should it be a life threating act? Will that
make it dangerous or it’s just the nature of the act which turns dangerous? It was elaborated
upon in R V Church 1966. Where it was subjected to the objective test. Here objective test
means an act which is seen as dangerous by a reasonable sober person. The meaning of
dangerous and the application of the test could be seen thought Dawson 1985 and Watson
1989 both have considerably similar action but received different verdict. In the former D
pointed a replica gun during robbery at V. V died from heart attack due to heart condition.
His conviction of constructive manslaughter was quashed. As under a reasonable man could
not expect that V would die of a heart attack because of a gun being pointed at him. In latter
case V was an old man. D was committing burglary. The encounter between D and V caused
V heart attack. Where D was convicted of constructive manslaughter as it is something which
could be seen dangerous considering the frailty of the old man. One could say that it
somewhat narrows the scope of dangerous act but its exact meaning is still unclear. In Dalby
it was stated that the criminal act needs to be directed towards the V. So does it mean that it
does not include any third party which might be effected from the criminal act? It was cleared
R V Mitchell. Where it was stated that the act could be directed towards third party. A further
qualification was added that as there should be commission of an act it could not be
committed through omission R V Lowe. Seeing constructive manslaughter in regards to
drugs being supplied and being self-injected. So in order to convict of constructive
manslaughter the prosecution need to proof a criminal act, the act as being dangerous and
causation. building chain is causation is relatively easy for the prosecution. As applying the
but for test takes care of most of the issues. In Kennedy No.2 it was stated that supplying
drugs is although a dangerous act but if a victim self-injects a drug and death occurs the chain
of causation will be broken. However, if D Injected V with drugs and death occur due to it.
then D would be convicted for constructive manslaughter (Cato). The chain of causation is
difficult to establish in a case of suicide. Where V commits suicide due to D’s act. Which test
is to be applied? Is there a need to establish the qualifying trigger? Who is to say to what
extent D’s act became the reason of suicide? The tests which could have been applied were
Blause- egg shell skull rule, Robert- foresight test, Williams-draft test or the test proposed in
Kennedy. It was addressed in the case of Wallace in which it was concluded that if D’s act
was a significant contributing factor to V’s conduct for example in Dhaliwal. Looking back
at the issue of mens rea in constructive manslaughter one could say that the label does not fit
the crime. In an early case of DPP V Newbury and Jones 1976 it was stated that the act of D
does not have to constitute to endangerment it was enough that there was possibility of
physical injury. Seeing the conviction of the case no regard was given to the fact that they
were young. Could it be said that a sober mature person will have the same understanding of
analysis a situation as dangerous as a child? Shouldn’t they be judged according to their
mental capacity. Now applying it to another context what is D punched V and V died because
of that punch. Constructive manslaughter could be charged. But does it the conviction really
fit the crime? A charge as serious as manslaughter which scares a person’s character for life
be based on something more than a situation being dangerous? Shouldn’t foreseeability be
taken under consideration? Law commission review committee recommended to abolish
constructive manslaughter as well as reckless manslaughter in trying to limit the mens rea to
specific intent and recklessness. However, creating two more offenses for killing under the
heading of subjective recklessness and gross carelessness. the reform tried to address the
issue and where considered in the case of R V F. However, one could see the importance of
assigning the proportionate label to a crime so they a person could be fairly convicted.