Introduction
Constructive manslaughter, also known as unlawful act manslaughter, is a form of homicide where death results from an intentional, unlawful, and dangerous act. The prosecution must demonstrate that the defendant committed an unlawful act that a reasonable person would recognize as dangerous, leading directly to the victim's death. The legal test for dangerousness in constructive manslaughter is objective, meaning it does not depend on the defendant’s subjective awareness of the risk involved, rather on what a sober and reasonable person would perceive. DPP v Newbury and Jones is a case that specifically addresses this objective standard of dangerousness, confirming that the defendant's foresight of harm is not a requirement for a conviction of constructive manslaughter. This decision is central to understanding the application of the objective test. The case highlights the requirements for establishing constructive manslaughter including an unlawful act and the fact that this act caused death, alongside the objective test of dangerousness.
The Unlawful Act Element in Manslaughter
The first element in establishing constructive manslaughter is the presence of an unlawful act. This means the defendant must commit a crime other than the act of causing death itself. This initial unlawful act can be a variety of offenses, ranging from theft or assault to criminal damage. In R v Franklin, for example, the defendant's unlawful act of taking a box and throwing it into the sea was deemed sufficient when it struck and killed a swimmer. It is essential that the initial act is considered unlawful and not simply negligent conduct. The act must be a criminal offense and not a tortious, or civil, wrong. R v Lamb illustrates the importance of this unlawfulness, where the defendant, believing a gun to be safe, accidentally shot and killed a friend; because no criminal act was involved before the discharge, no manslaughter was constituted. The mere presence of the defendant in a place known to cause distress, without a further unlawful act, is insufficient, as seen in R v Arobieke, where the Court of Appeal quashed the conviction due to the absence of a criminal act that caused death. In R v Cato, the supply and administration of a noxious substance (heroin) was the act to which the death was attributed, demonstrating that the initial act can come in the form of administering a substance.
The Dangerousness Test: An Objective Standard
Following the determination of an unlawful act, the next requirement is to prove that the act was dangerous. Crucially, this element is evaluated according to an objective test, as established in DPP v Newbury and Jones. This case confirmed that the court does not assess if the defendant recognised the dangerous nature of their act. The appropriate consideration is whether a sober and reasonable person would recognize that the act carried a risk of some harm. Lord Salmon in DPP v Newbury and Jones stated that, “…the test is not did the accused recognise that it was dangerous but would all sober and reasonable people recognise its danger”. This approach has been further defined in subsequent cases such as R v Church, where the court clarified that the unlawful act must be one that a reasonable person would inevitably recognise carries at least the risk of some harm, albeit not serious harm. R v Dawson, however, qualified this test by stating that the “sober and reasonable man” should have the same knowledge as the defendant at the time of the offense. This meant that facts unknown to the defendant are not to be imputed to the reasonable man. Conversely, R v Watson established that the reasonable man can be imbued with all the knowledge that the defendant gains during the course of the unlawful act, such as the realization that a victim is frail. The objective nature of the test was further reinforced in R v Ball where the Court of Appeal held that the mistaken belief of a defendant that he was firing blanks did not need to be considered by the objective test.
The Direct Causation Link Between Unlawful Act and Death
A substantial and direct causative link must be shown between the unlawful and dangerous act, and the victim’s death. The unlawful act must be a significant, rather than minor, contributor to the death. The courts have dealt with cases with complex causal chains to establish what constitutes direct causation. In R v Dalby, the court determined that the defendant's act of supplying drugs, while unlawful, was not a direct cause of death as the victim's act of taking the drug was the intervening and significant action that resulted in death. R v Mitchell, conversely, found the defendant liable where an act of pushing a man, which caused him to fall onto and injure the victim, did directly cause her death. It did not matter that the defendant did not directly harm the victim. The court in R v Goodfellow confirmed that the defendant’s act does not have to be directed towards the victim in order for the causation requirement to be satisfied, as the death of the defendant’s wife and children had been caused by his criminal damage of a firebomb. The important factor was the causal link and not the intention to harm that specific individual.
Application of the Principles in DPP v Newbury and Jones
In DPP v Newbury and Jones, the defendants, two teenage boys, pushed a paving stone from a bridge onto a train below, killing the train guard. The key question for the court was whether they could be held liable for manslaughter even though they had not foreseen any danger from their act. The House of Lords ruled that the test for dangerousness was objective. This decision means that it is not the defendant's perception of risk that matters, but rather whether a reasonable person would have recognised a risk of harm resulting from the act. This crucial point distinguishes the approach taken to manslaughter from other criminal offenses, where a defendant’s mental state (mens rea) is a requirement. DPP v Newbury and Jones established that for constructive manslaughter, the intent to commit the initial unlawful act is necessary, but the foresight of harm is not. This case set the benchmark for how the “reasonable person” is used to determine dangerousness, reinforcing the objectivity in evaluating the dangerousness of an unlawful act. The House of Lords applied the “reasonable person” test in finding the defendants guilty of manslaughter.
Reconciling Subjectivity and Objectivity
The principles of DPP v Newbury and Jones appear, at first glance, to create a dissonance between the subjective awareness of the accused and the objective assessment by the court. However, the legal framework for constructive manslaughter is specifically designed to attribute liability when an individual's unlawful act directly results in a death that a reasonable person would foresee as a risk of harm. While the defendant's mental state is not evaluated when looking at the dangerousness of their act, the court does consider the defendant’s mental state in relation to the initial unlawful act. The accused must intentionally commit an unlawful act to establish culpability. This creates a hybrid model. The model does not punish negligence, but instead holds individuals accountable for the unexpected consequences of their intentional and unlawful actions that carry obvious risk of harm. The objective test serves to ensure that, where an unlawful and dangerous act has caused death, the law is able to respond without requiring evidence of a specific subjective intent.
Conclusion
The judgment in DPP v Newbury and Jones clarified the application of the objective test for dangerousness within the context of constructive manslaughter, which is an important aspect of criminal law. This case reinforces that while an unlawful act is a key element, the focus is on what a reasonable person, rather than the defendant, would recognise as dangerous. This has a significant impact on the application of the law, ensuring that individuals who commit unlawful actions which a reasonable person can see as carrying some risk of harm are held responsible for the consequences. The decision in DPP v Newbury and Jones, along with cases such as R v Church, R v Dawson, and R v Watson, provides a comprehensive framework for understanding the objective standard required for establishing constructive manslaughter. The requirement for direct causation, as explored in cases such as R v Dalby, R v Mitchell, and R v Goodfellow, illustrates the complex interaction of different legal concepts necessary to determine criminal liability in these cases. This complex interplay provides a robust legal structure for determining culpability where death results from an unlawful and dangerous act.
