R v Dawson
The reasonable person in the dangerousness test has the same knowledge as the defendant, and harm includes physical harm caused by shock.
Facts
Mr Dawson and two other men robbed a petrol station, wearing masks and armed with a pickaxe handle and a replica gun. The attendant, who was 60, had a heart condition, which the robbers did not know about. He pressed the alarm, and the robbers fled. He died shortly afterwards from a heart attack. The robbers were convicted of manslaughter.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal quashed the convictions, because the jury had not been properly directed. The question was whether a sober and reasonable person would recognise that the robbery carried a risk of physical harm to the attendant, and that person has the same knowledge as the defendants at the time, so would not know of the attendant's heart condition. The court also held that harm in this context means physical harm, and that emotional disturbance alone is not enough, although shock that produces physical injury may be.
Related cases on involuntary manslaughter
- DPP v Newbury and Jones [1977] AC 500
- 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 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.
