Idk why people are bringing up intent… you don’t need intent to be charged with manslaughter. Just being reckless is enough.
In saying that, this one is very shaky. I doubt he’s actually convicted.
No it isn't. Taken from Reddit regarding UK manslaughter laws:
"The breach of duty must be so bad as to be gross, i.e. criminal. This was defined in Adomako [1994] 3 All ER 79 as follows: having regard to the risk of death involved, was the conduct of the defendant so bad in all the circumstances as to amount to a criminal act or omission? The prosecution must prove the following two elements:
a) that the circumstances were such that a reasonably prudent person in the defendant's position would have foreseen a serious and obvious risk of death arising from the defendant's act or omission;
b) that the breach of duty was, in all the circumstances, so reprehensible and fell so far below the standards to be expected of a person in the defendant's position with his qualifications, experience and responsibilities that it amounted to a crime."
There needs to be way more than "it was reckless" to actually get a charge like this to stick. Which is why it's nonsensical that he's getting arrested for this, the incident doesn't even remotely hit both of these points. Under any reasonable situation, these charges should be dropped because there is no way you can seriously argue that this incident without any doubt rose to this level.