DPP v Newbury and Jones
For unlawful act manslaughter, the defendant need not foresee that his act might cause harm, as long as a reasonable person would recognise that it was dangerous.
Facts
Two 15 year old boys pushed part of a paving stone off a railway bridge as a train was approaching. The stone went through the window of the driver's cab and hit the guard, who was sitting next to the driver, and killed him. They were convicted of manslaughter.
Legal principle
The House of Lords upheld the convictions. Lord Salmon said that, for unlawful act manslaughter, it is enough that the defendant intentionally did an act that was unlawful and dangerous and that it caused death. The defendant does not have to recognise that his act was dangerous, because the test of dangerousness is objective, as set out in R v Church: whether all sober and reasonable people would recognise that the act would subject the victim to the risk of some harm.
Related cases on involuntary manslaughter
- R v Adomako [1995] 1 AC 171
- R v Bateman (1925) 19 Cr App R 8
- R v Bawa-Garba [2016] EWCA Crim 1841
- R v Cato [1976] 1 WLR 110
- R v Cotswold Geotechnical Holdings Ltd [2011] EWCA Crim 1337
- R v Dawson (1985) 81 Cr App R 150
- R v Goodfellow (1986) 83 Cr App R 23
- R v Kuddus [2019] EWCA Crim 837
Studying criminal law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
