## 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.
