Originally Posted by
Chris Scott
What about the manslaughter element of "gross-negligence manslaughter"? Does
my argument above have any legal merit? If not, I suspect it would resonate with many lay people, nevertheless.
Intent, or its absence, is the difference between manslaughter and murder. Even lay people understand that, so your argument has no resonance whatsoever. Manslaughter very clearly means *unintentional* unlawful killing. Unintended actions can still be indictable where failure of a duty of reasonable care is involved, as it is with operating a vehicle or aircraft.
The fact that Hill didn't attempt to crash in an unoccupied area does not mean that he intended to kill the bystanders. (Had he tried to do something like that he certainly would have died). In the final stages he was taking the course of action most likely to avoid a crash, and very nearly succeeded; however the lack of intent to kill anyone else and the genuine effort to avoid crashing do not by themselves exclude manslaughter.