Kembaraxtra- Case Law-Scarlett (1993) - Unlawful Act Manslaughter

Kembaraxtra- Case Law-Scarlett (1993) - Unlawful Act Manslaughter
Facts:

D, a pub landlord, physically guided an intoxicated customer toward the pub exit.
The customer fell backwards down the steps and died.

Issue:

Held:

Reasoning:

Two-Stage Consideration: The court emphasized a two-stage process for the jury:
- Unlawful Act: First, determine if D's action (pushing/guiding the customer) constituted an assault and was therefore an unlawful act.
- Dangerousness: Separately, determine if the unlawful act was dangerous.
Excessive Force and Belief: Beldam LJ provided guidance on assessing the force used:
- The jury must be satisfied that the force used was "plainly more than was called for by the circumstances as [D] believed them to be."
- If D genuinely believed the circumstances warranted the level of force used, he should not be convicted, even if that belief was unreasonable.
Call for Reform: The court stated that the current law on unlawful act manslaughter is in "urgent need of reform."

Key Principles & Implications:

Subjective Element: Scarlett introduces a strong subjective element into the assessment of unlawful act manslaughter when self-defense or prevention of crime is claimed. The focus shifts to what the defendant believed was necessary, even if that belief was unreasonable.
Balancing Act: Highlights the difficult balance between protecting individuals and holding them accountable for unintentional harm.

Significance:

Scarlett clarifies the application of unlawful act manslaughter in situations involving potential self-defense or prevention of crime, emphasizing the defendant's subjective belief.
The judgment underscores the complexities and potential injustices within the existing law, contributing to the ongoing debate about reform.

LAW