DPP v Newbury & Jones [1977] AC 500

Facts

• Two teenage defendants, Newbury and Jones, pushed a paving stone from a bridge onto a passing train, resulting in the death of the train guard.
• The defendants were charged with constructive (unlawful act) manslaughter.
• The prosecution’s case centered on whether the defendants could be found liable without proof they had foreseen the risk of harm from their act.

Issues

1. Whether constructive manslaughter requires that the defendant foresaw a risk of harm from their unlawful act.
2. Whether the test for dangerousness in unlawful act manslaughter is objective or subjective.
3. Whether the defendants' intention to commit the initial unlawful act, without foresight of harm, suffices for liability.

Decision

• The House of Lords held that the test for dangerousness in constructive manslaughter is objective.
• It was confirmed that it is unnecessary for the prosecution to prove the defendants foresaw the risk of harm.
• The court determined that liability for manslaughter attaches if a reasonable person would recognize that the unlawful act posed some risk of harm.
• The “reasonable person” test was applied, and the defendants were found guilty of manslaughter.

Legal Principles

• Constructive manslaughter requires an unlawful, intentional act that is also dangerous, as determined by the standard of a sober and reasonable person.
• The dangerousness of the act is measured objectively, not by the defendant's subjective appreciation of risk.
• Foresight of harm by the defendant is not an element of the offense; what matters is objective foreseeability of harm by a reasonable person.
• The act must directly and significantly contribute to the victim’s death, establishing a causal link.
• The intent required is to commit the core unlawful act, not to cause harm or death.

Conclusion

The decision in DPP v Newbury & Jones established that the test for dangerousness in unlawful act manslaughter is objective, removing the need for the defendant’s subjective foresight of harm. Liability is based on whether a reasonable person would have recognized the risk present in the unlawful act. This ruling forms a central element of the legal framework governing constructive manslaughter in English law.