Involuntary manslaughter: Manslaughter by an unlawful and dangerous act;

Involuntary manslaughter: Manslaughter by an unlawful and dangerous act;

Unlawful act manslaughter is where there is an unlawful killing but the killer did not have the mens rea of Murder (Unlawful Killing).

There are four criteria required to prove unlawful act manslaughter;

1. The first requirement is that there must be an unlawful act which must be positive (R v Lowe) and criminal offence (R v Franklin);

- R v Lamb states the actus reus of the unlawful act must be fulfilled, like causing the victim to fear unlawful force for Assault.

- R v Arobekiake states that the defendant must have the mens rea for the unlawful act and does not need to be directed to the victim.

- R v Mitchell also states the unlawful act does not need to be directed to the victim.

- R v Goodfellow states the unlawful act does not need to be directed to  a person or anyone.

- R v Scarlett states that in situations where contact or battery occurs, it must be proven the defendant used excessive force for it to be an unlawful act.

2. The second requirement would be that the unlawful act must be dangerous. For an unlawful act to be dangerous, it must be meet the tests set in R v Church;

- A reasonable and sober person would see a risk of harm that can arise from the act.

- There must be a risk of physical harm, fear of apprehension of harm is not enough (R v Dawson) unless the victim is vulnerable (R v Watson), like too frail or weak and this would also be apparent to the sober and reasonable man.

 R v Ball states that the tests will be an objective one, based on the sober and reasonable person's perception not the defendant. Similarly, DPP v Newbury and Jones states there is no need for the defendant to foresee some harm from his/her actions.

3. The third requirement is to prove that the unlawful , dangerous act resulted to the victim's death;

Normal criminal causation is applied;
Factual causation - But for test
Legal causation - operating and significant cause and any intervening acts

There would only be issues in this criteria if there is drugs involve as the question that will be asked is if the drugs the defendant suppliers caused the victim's death;

- R v Cato held that if the defendant was the one who injects drugs to the victim, it will be held as an unlawful act.

- R v Dalby held that if the defendant is only supplying the drugs, he will not be doing an unlawful act even of the victim dies from the drugs.

- R v Dias held that self injection of drugs that are prepared by a third party is not an unlawful act, as the victim's own conduct is the direct cause of death.

The last requirement would be to prove that the defendant must have the mens rea for the initial unlawful act (Assault, Battery, etc).