'It would be better to do away with unlawful act manslaughter and with gross negligence manslaughter and to have just reckless manslaughter.' Discuss. Intro - RM's existence is unclear, it may exist in conjunction with UAM and GNM - This essay will argue: (1) RM is beneficial to the communicative functions of criminal law, specifically with regards to fair labelling and fair sentencing (2) But it is only so in conjunction with UAM and GNM, otherwise liability is too narrow More useful to have it as its own head rather than doing away with others Definitions with AR and MR RM = subject of academic debate Why is narrowness a problem? Reckless manslaughter - Impact on current law - Unclear role in current system of involuntary manslaughter - Covers situations when D has caused the death of another person by an act they knew created a risk of death / serious injury - Current authority rests solely on Lidar: V hung out of car window as D recklessly sped, V was dragged out of the car and died - Judge directed jury to consider recklessness as to the risk of death rather than GNM - Stark: Lidar is a case of GNM, D's awareness of the risk of death should be a factor in determining whether their negligence was gross, not the basis of the whole charge (as in RM) - But even Stark himself admits, that while Lidar is not a prime example of RM, RM is still a beneficial idea in furthering principles of fair labelling and fair sentencing Fair labelling + sentencing - UAM and GNM alone do not differentiate between different levels of culpability UAM - UAM is extraordinarily broad: covers unlawful dangerous acts which cause death - Horder. moral threshold is crossed when D commits a criminal act - Counter: One punch cases: Mitchell (2009): convictions for UAM place too much weight on luck, death can be unforeseen and unforeseeable in one punch cases - Mallet: one punch kill - Convicts Ds of homicide when it is difficult to justify the label: may only require foreseeing property damage! - Need an appropriate label to regulate the gap, UAM does not differentiate based on culpability (which is very wide!) Dangerous test: how would you reform? GNM - GNM: takes cases which UAM cannot deal with, eg. Omissions, non-criminal cases - Adomako test: includes reasonably foreseeable obvious / serious risk of death, along with a "gross" breach - Recklessness and negligence should not be grouped together under one umbrella offence, they are different levels of culpability
- Stark: "more culpable to advertently risk serious bodily harm than it is to miss an obvious and serious risk of death". Need a distinction between these offences - Quick (2010): advocates even more meticulous approach, creating specific offence for health care contexts, eg. Death by dangerous doctoring RM - RM swoops in to catch Ds whose culpability does not neatly fit into UAM or GNM - However, it should be