Involuntary Manslaughter 1. By unlawful dangerous act a. Wilson i. Relevant Facts to legal issue 1.

The appellant while on the way to collect alcohol at a hotel nearby met deceased who was under the influence of alcohol. They had a bit of an argument with the deceased and deceased made it hard for appellant to pass. The appellant claimed deceased had tried to push him and then punched the deceased ii. Key legal issue 1. Whether the act would constitute manslaughter by an unlawful or dangerous act. 2. Reasonable person (objective) in position A would have utilized exposing A to an appreciable significant risk of serious injury. iii. Authorities they referred two 1. English authorities a. R v Franklin i. Unlawfulness has to be more than a civil wrong. A degree of dangerousness is needed. 2. Australian authorities a. R v Larkin i. The unlawful act must be dangerous and that it be likely to injure. b. R v Church i. Objective test reasonable person including sober person must recognise that the act was dangerous in the sense of carrying with it the risk of some harm. c. Mamote Kulang v R i. Death resulting from intentional infliction of pain by an unlawful blow would constitute manslaughter at common law. d. R v Holzer i. Appreciable risk of (really) serious injury. A reasonable man in Accuseds position performing the very act of Accused would have realized he was exposing another to an appreciable risk of really serious injury. iv. How H.G resolved legal issue and reasons v. Important legal principle from case vi. Application of legal principle to facts

b. Pullman i. Act must be criminal, tort not sufficient 1. Breach of statutory regulatory prohibition alone manslaughter 2. Must be unlawful in itself aside from breach. 2. Manslaughter by criminal negligence a. Nydam i. Act of Accused conscious and voluntary, need not intent or grevious bodily harm. ii. In circumstances which involved such a great falling short of standard care which a reasonable man (objective) should have exercised and which involved such a high risk of death or grevious bodily harm would follow that the doing of the act merited criminal punishment. b. Taktak (omission) i. Omission duty to act ii. Jones v VSA 1. Statute imposes duty 2. Status relationship 3. Contractual duty 4. Voluntarily assumed the care of another and so secluded the helpless person as to prevent others from rendering aid 5. Stone Dobinson make efforts to care circumstance relevant to who the duty had been assumed. A.R 1. Act or omission of A 2. Cause 3. Death of V M.R. Murder 1. Intent to kill 2. Intent to inflict gbh 3. Reckless indifference to human life Defendant to foresee probability of death manslaughter by unlawful and dangerous act. 1. Dangerous?- would reasonable person in position of Accused realized exposing V to appreciable risk of serious injury. 2. Unlawful criminal not tort, unlawful aside from the breach. Manslaughter by criminal negligence 1. If omission duty to act? 2. Such great faling short std care of reasponble person. 3. Involved such a high risk of death or gbh. 4. Merit criminal punishment.