Before leaving Les’s house, Neil swallowed some tablets which he found in the bathroom. Subsequently, back in his own flat, he set fire to the carpet (which belonged to the landlord) under the delusion that he was making a camp-fire. The fire spread rapid

It is likely that Neil may be charged with Unlawful Act Manslaughter. The case of Goodfellow derives a four-part test to test whether a person is guilty. This is; whether the defendant has committed an unlawful act, the act was objectively dangerous, the act caused the death and the defendant intended to commit the act. Franklin states that the act must be dangerous in a criminal sense and not a tortious one., the act also cannot be an omission. In this instance Neil has committed criminal damage by setting fire to the carpet, similar to the case of Goodfellow, and so would satisfy this part of the test. The act must then be considered objectively dangerous, using Church this means that a reasonable and sober person would recognise the risk of harm. Applying this to the situation a reasonable and sober person would recognise that setting a carpet on fire would cause harm. The next part of the test is that the unlawful act caused the death. Here the principles of factual and legal causation apply. Following Pagett, factual causation uses the ‘but for’ test to determine whether based on the fact the defendant caused the end result i.e. but for the initial act the end result would not have occurred. Legal causation requires the defendant to have significantly contributed to the end result so that any intervening act that may break the chain of causation are foreseeable, as seen in Cheshire. Cheshire ruled that an intervening act is an event which may break the chain of causation and render the defendant’s act insignificant to the final result. In this situation, ‘but for’ Neil setting the carpet on fire, Pan would not have been trapped and forced to escape, satisfying factual causation. When applying legal causation, it could be argued that Raisa’s negligence constitutes an intervening act and broke the chain of causation. This situation is similar to the case of Roberts which stated that if an attempted escape is foreseeable as a result of the defendant’s acts then any potential intervening act do not break the chain of causation. In this scenario escaping from a burning building is reasonably foreseeable and there would not be a break the chain of causation meaning Neil still contribution significantly to Pam’s death. The final part of the test is that the mens rea is the same as the unlawful act. Newbury & Jones confirmed that all that is needed is the mens rea of the unlawful act the defendant committed. Criminal damage is a basic intent crime and so requires at least subjective recklessness which is where risk is foreseeable, but the defendant carries on with the act anyway, here setting a carpet on fire can be seen as a foreseeable risk and by Neil carrying on he is being reckless satisfying the mens rea of the offence. Neil may raise the defence of Automatism. Bratty v A-G for Norther Ireland defines this as an act ‘‘done by the muscles without any control by the mind such as a spasm, a reflex action or a convulsion or an act done by a person who is not conscious of what he is doing...’, shown in Hill v Baxter this needs to be the result of an external factor which causes an involuntary act. Attorney-General reference for 1992 sates this loss of control must be complete. If the automatism is self-induced the defence will fail unless it is a specific-intent crime. As mentioned above unlawful act manslaughter is a basic intent crime and so it is likely that the defence will fail, following Bailey which states that if the defence does not apply to basic intent crimes when it is self-induced because the defendant has been reckless getting into that position, and therefore satisfies the mens rea of subjective recklessness. However, Hardie states that if the defendant has a sporadic reaction to the drugs or does not know the affect of the drugs then the defence ay succeed. In this scenario it is likely to be view that Neil by just taking the tablets he found in a cupboard without properly knowing the effect of the drugs is seen as reckless behaviour and therefore the defence is likely to fail, following Bailey.Raisa may be charged with Gross Negligence Manslaughter. Adomako requires that the defendant owes a duty of care, that duty has been breached, that breached caused the death and the conduct of the defendant was so gross it is equivalent to criminal liability. Adomako further states that to establish a duty of care and a breach of duty the ordinary principles of negligence apply. This covers a wide scenario basis ranging from relationships like doctor and patient and the five omissions which can cause liability. Raisa voluntarily took the responsibility of another, similar to Stone and Dobinson. Breach is established through the standard of reasonableness test which asks whether the defendant has fallen below the standard of care of an ordinary person in the same situation. Misa furthers this by stating it must carry an obvious risk of death. Here Raisa’ failure to lock down the ladder could be seen as below the standard expected of an ordinary person in the same position and with Pam in a burning building that carried with it an obvious risk of death which would establish a breach of their duty. Next is considering whether the breach caused the death. Here the principles of causation, as explained above, apply. But for Raisa’s breach Pam would not have fallen and consequently would not have died, satisfying factual causation, legal causation would be more contested as it would be argued that without Neil’s initial act Raisa’s act would not have followed and is foreseeable here it is likely that legal causation will fail as Raisa’s breach does not seem to have significantly contributed to Pam’s death, it could be argued that this was Neil’s initial act. Yet, if it were to be considered that Raisa’s breached caused Pam’s death then the jury would have to consider that Raisa’s conduct was so gross it was equivalent to criminal liability. Bateman states that it should be considered whether the defendant showed a “disregard for the life and safety of others”. Here the jury may look on Raisa favourably and view that they ere doing all they can to try and save Pam from a burning building and t could therefore be conceived that they would not view their mistake, which would be natural from an ordinary person under pressure as so gross it warranted criminal liability. Instead they are like to view Neil more harshly and find him guilty of Unlawful Act Manslaughter for Pam’s death and the defence of automatism would be likely to fail.