Odger's English Common Law

296 MANSLAUGHTER.
of negligence which will be deemed criminal. But, to be
criminal, it must be so gross and culpable as to deserve the
epithet "wicked ;" it must be the outcome of a criminal state
of mind. There must be some evidence of mens rea in addition
to the proof of negligence. Such negligence must be the
personal negligence of the accused, not merely that of his
servants. 1
There must be a personal duty on the accused, he
must personally neglect that duty and such neglect must
directly cause the death ; or no indictment will lie. "It is a
general principle of our criminal law that there must be as an
essential ingredient in a criminal offence some blameworthy
condition of mind. Sometimes it is negligence, sometimes
malice, sometimes guilty knowledge ; but as a general rule
there must be something of that kind which is designated by
the expression mens rea. Moreover, it is a principle of our
criminal law that the condition of mind of the servant is not
to be imputed to the master." 2
If a person takes upon himself to administer drugs being ignorant of
their probable effects and thus causes the death of another, he will be guilty
of criminal negligence.
So, too, a medical man must, at his peril, use proper skill and caution in
administering a poisonous drug or in performing an operation dangerous
to human life. 3
If a man accidentally kills another while shooting at a mark or target in
a place adapted for that pastime and under circumstances which render
such shooting permissible, he commits no crime. But where A., B. and 0.
for the purpose of practising shooting went into a field close to roads and
houses, taking with them a rifle which would be deadly at a mile, and
B. placed in a tree as a target a board which was handed to him by A. in
the presence of C, and all three fired shots at this board from a distance of
about 100 yards, taking no precautions of any kind to prevent danger to
the public from such firing, and one of the shots thus fired by one of them,
though it was not proved by which, killed a boy in a tree in a garden near
the field at a spot distant 393 yards from the firing point, the jury found
A., B. and C. guilty of manslaughter, and it was held by the Court for
Crown Cases Reserved that all three had been guilty of a breach of duty
in firing at the spot in question without taking proper precautions to
prevent injury to others, and were rightly so convicted. 4
i R. v. Bennett (1858), Bell, 0. 0. 1 ; R. v. Buggins (1730), 17 St. Tr. 298, 310.
And see ante, pp. 129, 130.
2 Per Cave, J., in Chisholm v. Doulton (1889), 22 Q. B. D. at p. 741.
3 R. v. Spencer (1867), 10 Cox, 525 ; R. v. Macleod (1874), 12 Cox, 534.
1 R. v. Salmon and oikers (1880), 6 Q. B. D. 79.