DPP v Newbury and Jones
[1977] AC 500; [1976] UKHL 3
Independent editorial summary — not the official judgment. Read the full judgment via the source link.
Ratio Decidendi
A defendant is guilty of unlawful act (constructive) manslaughter if it is proved that he intentionally did an act which was unlawful and dangerous and that act inadvertently caused death; it is unnecessary to prove that he knew the act was unlawful or dangerous, or that he foresaw harm to another. Dangerousness is judged objectively: the test is not whether the accused recognised the danger but whether all sober and reasonable people would recognise it.
Facts
On 11 October 1974, as a train travelling from Pontypridd to Cardiff approached a bridge, the two appellants, boys of about 15, were jointly concerned in pushing part of a paving stone off the parapet towards the oncoming train. The stone came through the glass window of the cab, struck the guard sitting next to the driver, and killed him. Both were convicted of manslaughter; the trial judge had not directed the jury that they must be satisfied the appellants foresaw that they might cause harm, and the certified question was whether a defendant can properly be convicted of manslaughter if he did not foresee that his act might cause harm to another.
Judgment Summary
The House of Lords unanimously dismissed the appeals. Lord Salmon, delivering the leading speech, held that the trial judge was right not to direct the jury on foresight of harm: approving R v Larkin and R v Church, he held that manslaughter requires only the basic intention to do the unlawful and dangerous act, judged by the objective standard of sober and reasonable people, and he explained that Lord Denning MR's observations in Gray v Barr should not be read as changing that law. Lord Edmund-Davies agreed, adding that Church marked no new departure and that the direction of Tasker Watkins J was in strict accordance with the settled law.
Key Quotes
"It makes it plain (a) that an accused is guilty of manslaughter if it is proved that he intentionally did an act which was unlawful and dangerous and that that act inadvertently caused death and (b) that it is unnecessary to prove that the accused knew that the act was unlawful or dangerous."
— Lord Salmon(verbatim, verified against the judgment)
"The test is still the objective test. In judging whether the act was dangerous the test is not did the accused recognise that it was dangerous but would all sober and reasonable people recognise its danger."
— Lord Salmon(verbatim, verified against the judgment)
Subsequent Treatment
The objective dangerousness test approving R v Larkin and R v Church remains the settled basis of unlawful act manslaughter, and was applied by the House of Lords in Attorney-General's Reference (No 3 of 1994) [1998] AC 245.
What To Do Next
Step-by-Step Guides
Know Your Rights
Common Scenarios
Get Professional Help