R v Church [1966] 1 QB 59

Facts

  • The defendant, Mr. Church, engaged in a sexual encounter with the victim inside a van.
  • After the victim mocked Mr. Church’s impotence, a physical altercation ensued, during which Mr. Church struck the victim, rendering her unconscious.
  • Believing the victim was dead, Mr. Church disposed of her body by throwing her into a river.
  • Medical evidence revealed the victim was alive when submerged, and death was caused by drowning.
  • The trial judge directed the jury to consider Mr. Church’s “whole course of conduct” as a single event; this direction was later challenged on appeal.

Issues

  1. Whether the initial assault constituted the unlawful act necessary for manslaughter.
  2. Whether the unlawful act was objectively dangerous to the victim.
  3. Whether the defendant’s acts were causally linked to the victim’s death, or if the event should be separated into distinct acts.
  4. Whether the defendant’s mistaken belief regarding the victim’s death negated the mens rea required for manslaughter.

Decision

  • The Court of Appeal upheld Mr. Church’s conviction for manslaughter.
  • It established an objective test for dangerousness: an act is dangerous if all sober and reasonable people would inevitably recognize that it subjects the victim to the risk of some harm, even if not serious harm.
  • The court confirmed that the “whole course of conduct” could be treated as a single transaction, enabling liability even if the initial and fatal acts did not precisely coincide.
  • The mistaken belief that the victim was dead did not excuse the defendant from liability, as the connected series of events caused the death.

Legal Principles

  • Unlawful act manslaughter requires an unlawful and dangerous act that causes death.
  • Dangerousness is assessed objectively: the reasonable bystander standard is applied, focusing on the risk of some harm.
  • The causation requirement can be met by treating a series of linked acts as a single transaction if the defendant’s actions lead to death.
  • A mistaken belief about the state of the victim does not negate liability where the defendant’s overall conduct causes death.
  • The principles clarified in this case influence both direct liability and accessory liability frameworks in relation to unlawful acts and causation.

Conclusion

R v Church [1966] 1 QB 59 is a seminal case establishing the objective test for dangerousness in unlawful act manslaughter and confirming that a defendant’s entire course of conduct may be considered in determining liability, regardless of mistaken belief about the victim’s status.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal