Is absolutely spot on here and as he has highlighted there are two types of voluntary manslaughter. Manslaughter killing by an unlawful act and Manslaughter killing by gross negligence.
Marralass, Manslaughter Killing by an Unlawful act requires the unlawful act to be inherently unlawful. Driving no matter by what mannor is not inherently unlawful but can attract criminal liability. Therefore no type of driving can technically for fill this offence. The offence must also be likely to result in the infliction of bodily harm and there must be a direct link between the act and the likelihood of bodily harm (TWOC and contravening a red traffic signal would not suffice). Also with dangerous driving it can be held that the driving was dangerous without the need to prove the defendant appreciated the likelihood of causing injury. Argo even if this offence was applicable for driving incidents it would be easier to prove Death by Dangerous Driving as there is no requirement for the defendant to appreciate the risk of serious harm or harm being caused just that they were aware that their driving fell far below the
standard of a competent and careful driver.
Manslaughter killing by gross negligence is a complex offence to prove and requires both a legal and factual test of the term gross and then a factual test for negligence but it is generally reserved for cases of severe negligence not just driving incidents and is usually reserved for matters that have been committed by omission.
In summary, The RTA brought about the offence of death by dangerous driving for a reason. For cases where there was no Intent to cause the death or GBH (i.e. no murder) there was little by way of offences to reflect the severity of bringing about a death by dangerous driving as, as stated above, it was held that Manslaughter would not apply.
Edited by CopperUK, 12 February 2013 - 08:21 pm.