Question:
‘Bearing in mind the existence of the mandatory life sentence for murder, the offence of murder should be defined as narrowly as possible. By contrast the breadth of involuntary manslaughter is not such a concern.’
Discuss.
Answer:
Introduction
The question of whether there is a need to provide a narrower definition of murder and involuntary manslaughter is an important one as these offences are amongst the most serious of criminal offences. According to the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the sentencing for murder is a mandatory life sentence.[1] Simultaneously, the maximum sentence for involuntary manslaughter is life imprisonment as well.[2] Hence, the existence of these harsh sentences plays a big part in establishing the fact that both offences require a more limited scope of use. Despite that, there are alternative reasons, such as ethical and moral justifications, that should be considered the main grounds to argue for clearer clarification of murder and involuntary manslaughter.
Should intention to cause grievous bodily harm form the mens rea for murder?
According to Cunningham, an intention to cause grievous bodily harm regardless of whether the defendant foresaw the victim’s death is enough to give rise to a murder conviction, even where the accused does not intend to kill.[i][3] In Hyam v DPP, a minority in the House of Lords wanted to define the rule more narrowly to an intention to cause grievous bodily harm with the knowledge that death was a possibility.[4] However, it was held that the mens rea for murder was established if the defendant knew that their actions would result in grievous bodily harm, even though the result of the defendant’s actions were not intended. This has resulted in the fault element of murder not corresponding to the conduct leading to the charge, making defendants liable for a more serious crime than intended.[ii] Consequently, the present definition of the mens rea for murder results in more people receiving the mandatory life sentence for murder when they are in truth, not murderers.[5] Hence, there is a need for a narrower definition of murder.[iii]
If the inclusion of grievous bodily harm in the mens rea for murder were to be abolished, it would become more difficult for a prosecution to establish a murder conviction. An accused defendant, who did intend to kill, could easily claim that they only intended to cause grievous bodily harm, which would allow them to avoid the mandatory life sentence and be given a lesser sentence. However, it is important to consider that including this rule gives judges too much freedom and discretion in deciding whether to charge murder or a lesser homicide charge.[iv] A defendant’s conviction might wholly depend on the fact that the prosecutor decided to opt for murder rather than a lesser charge such as manslaughter. This would be quite unfair to defendants and could lead to innocent people receiving a sentence they do not deserve, defeating the purpose of criminal law, which is to protect the innocent. Significantly, Blackstone’s ratio supports this argument in that ‘it is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer’.[6] As a result, the offence of murder should be defined as narrowly as possible by removing the inclusion of causing grievous bodily harm to ensure that no innocent people are convicted of the wrong crime [v] and that they do not receive an overly harsh sentence.
The Law Commission Proposals (2006) suggests that defendants who have engaged in serious violence knowing the risks of death must accept the consequences of their actions, even if they did not intend those consequences at the time of the crime.[7] It can be claimed that those who of their own free will inflict serious injury on others possess a moral culpability that is comparable to an intentional killer. The intention to inflict such harm depicts that a defendant has a disregard for life and crosses a moral threshold which could justify a conviction for murder if death is the result. Therefore, those who intentionally inflict grievous bodily harm and endanger a life in the process deserve to be convicted of murder if death results. On the other hand, many insist that the offence of murder should be left for only the most heinous of killings. Although the moral difference is similar, there is still a vital distinction that needs to be made between an accused who intends to cause death and one who only intends to cause injury. The Commission’s Proposals to charge defendants who intended to do serious injury and are aware of the risk of causing death, therefore, fails to accurately differentiate between different levels of moral culpability. Consequently, the offence of murder should be defined as narrowly as possible to only give the mandatory life sentence of murder to those who intend to kill.[vi]
Should low levels of violence or a breach of duty which unforeseeably results in death be treated as involuntary manslaughter?
Involuntary manslaughter refers to killings that have occurred where the defendants did not intend to kill or cause grievous bodily harm but have fulfilled the actus reus element of murder.[8] The consequences of being accused of involuntary manslaughter under UK law can be severe. Even though the prison sentence is usually 2 to 10 years, there is the possibility of a maximum sentence of life imprisonment, depending on the judge’s discretion.[9] Therefore, the maximum sentence should be considered when evaluating whether the scope of involuntary manslaughter should be limited. It is arguably unfair to impose such a harsh sentence and stigmatic label such as manslaughter on a defendant who either only intended a minor battery or was careless in their behaviour. For that reason, the breadth of involuntary manslaughter should also be defined as narrowly as possible. However, the maximum sentence for involuntary manslaughter is not the principal reason why the parameters of the offence should be more well defined.[vii]
With unlawful and dangerous act manslaughter[viii] , there is the ethical argument that the termination of a life by an unlawful act should be punished regardless of the lack of intention or foresight regarding death or serious injury. To do otherwise would give the impression that causing harm to other people does not matter. As this would be an ethically irresponsible message to send, it follows that people who punch others and accidentally kills them due to an unforeseen physical weakness, for example, a thin skull, should be convicted of some sort of homicide offence for their violent conduct.[10] However, in terms of moral culpability and deliberate wrongdoing, these sorts of crimes should be considered as ones with lighter sentences. This is because the defendants could not have known of the victim’s hidden weaknesses. It can be assumed that had the defendant known of the victim’s condition, the criminal offence might have possibly not taken place.[ix] As a consequence, the label of manslaughter is perhaps an overly severe title for accidental killings, since the accused would have merely been charged a minor assault [x] had the person not been killed unexpectedly. Hence, criminal law requires a narrower definition of involuntary manslaughter to distinguish between harsher and more lenient unlawful acts [xi] to ensure that not all offenders are awarded such a stigmatic title for what should be considered lesser crimes.
According to the Law Commission Proposals, gross negligence manslaughter is being suggested to form the third tier of the new homicide law, still under the title of manslaughter.[11] Although it is assertable that this type of manslaughter should retain its name due to a life still being lost, the underlying act of breaching the duty of care owed towards the victim or acting through omission cannot be considered to be as serious an act as actually injuring the victim. Thus, killings that occur due to gross negligence arguably do not belong in so serious an offence category as manslaughter. In contrast with the Law Commission Proposals, the definition of involuntary manslaughter should be narrowed down to exclude gross negligence manslaughter as the conduct of the defendant does not reflect the brevity and negative connotations associated with the offence.[xii]
Conclusion
Overall, both murder and involuntary manslaughter are considered serious labels with severe consequences for a defendant charged with either offence. The fact that there is a mandatory life sentence for murder plays a large part in the reasoning for it to be defined as narrowly as possible to ensure that no innocent parties are incorrectly convicted. However, there is also a convincing moral justification to limit its scope as well. Similarly, for involuntary manslaughter, the maximum life sentence does contribute to the grounds for a clearer interpretation but the fact that so many crimes can be caught under such a stigmatizing label is even more cause for concern. Accordingly, there is the need to provide a more restricted scope for both offences.[xiii]
Feedback:
Grade: 64
Feedback:
Your answer is well written and well structured and you have tackled the core normative question systematically, arriving at clear conclusions.
There are a few points where you could have expressed your argument more clearly. I have mentioned these in my comments in the text. The main thing that is missing from your answer is an explanation of the legal principles of liability for murder and involuntary manslaughter and the case law which supports these. You need to show that you have read and understood the legislation and cases which have created this set of legal principles which you are discussing.
Your grade would be improved if you had set out the law as it is and as it has developed as a basis for your very good normative analysis.
References: [1] Criminal Justice Act 2003 [2] Jonathan Herring , Criminal Law: Text, Cases and Materials (9th edn, Oxford University Press 2020) 235 [3] [1957] 2 QB 396 [4] [1975] AC 55 [5] R v Powell and English [1997] 3 WLR 959 [6] William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England (Clarendon Press 1765) [7] Law Commission Proposals 2006 [8] Jonathan Herring , Criminal Law: Text, Cases and Materials (9th edn, Oxford University Press 2020) 235 [9] Ibid. [10] Ibid. 105 [11] Law Commission Proposals 2006
Marker Comments:
[i]Good
[ii]Good, this is a key point. I think you are invoking the principle of fair labelling, which is relevant here. You should mention the principle.
[iii]Good
[iv]It is not the judge who decides what charge to bring. The CPS would determine the charge (as you say in the next sentence) and the jury then decides whether the necessary facts are proved.
[v]It may be over-stating it to describe someone who kills while intending to cause very serious harm as innocent. This is the point made by the Law Commission, which you cover in the next paragraph.
There is an argument that whether an intended serious assault caused death or not may be a matter of ‘moral luck’.
[vi]Very good
[vii]I agree with this. There is wide discretion in sentencing for manslaughter so the fact that the maximum sentence is life imprisonment is not a compelling factor, unlike for murder where it is mandatory.
[viii]You should explain the law here and give some authority to support ie what is meant by ‘dangerous’, what is the mens rea + the relevant case law that sets out these principles
[ix]Good point but you should consider that unlawful and dangerous act MS does not always involve a ‘thin skull’ situation. Unexpected, unforeseen death can result for many different reasons.
[x]Not necessarily minor assault. It could be a serious assault that does not cause death.
[xi]Do you mean for more and less dangerous acts? It is not clear exactly what you mean in this paragraph and what you are proposing as an improvement.
[xii]Good
[xiii]Good, clear conclusion.
Comments