Difference Between Murder And Involuntary Manslaughter

Distinguishing the line between the offences of murder and involuntary manslaughter is a hard one in this case. Murder and manslaughter are two that are contemplated as serious offences and are offences that constitute homicide. However, taking into consideration that David had no purpose of hurting Gamma it’s clear that this has became a involuntary manslaughter. The act of manslaughter arises when one commits the actus reus (guilty act) of homicide but cannot be liable for murder as they do not have the mens rea (guilty mind). Which is what David is liable for, since he committed an unlawful act that is not considered as a murder by law. Manslaughter is broke down into two categories, which are involuntary and voluntary manslaughter.
It’s clear that David had no intention to hurt Gamma. However, at this point David has assaulted her as he has committed ABH under section 47 against her, as his push was most likely to cause her bruises or laceration. David had the intention to assault Gamma as they had the argument and at this point its possible that he was anger, which is what made him exert the unlawful force of the push. (R v Savage [1991] 94 Cr App R 193) for example in this case a defendant that has attempted to throw beer on a victim, but the glass slips and hits the victim. Although the there was no intention to commit ABH, the intention to throw the beer on the victim was seen as an offence as she has not foreseen the danger. David has also committed GBH as the push could’ve also caused her to get internal damage in head. On top of that she also hit her head the “edge of the pier” which causes her to become unconscious. Gemma was feeling scared and vulnerable and the fact that her husband become violent for the first time in 10 year become hard to accept although he did not intent to be violent. Scaring her has resulted her to lose her balance which then she falls over and knockers her head. David had acknowledged the damage he had cause through his recklessness but chooses not to take action although it’s is his liability. David fearing the consequences and the blame drags Gemma back into
Whereas, David was in his right mind, but did not intend to cause harm jus like the defendant in this case simultaneously, to the case of R v Seymour [1983] 2 AC 493 House of Lords where the defendant had a heated argument with his girlfriend. He then tried to push her car with his lorry. Unfortunately he crushed her as she was trapped between the lorry and the car. On the other hand David has the actus reus required for the