## Facts

- Three defendants attempted to rob a 60-year-old petrol station attendant with a heart condition.
- The defendants wore masks and one carried a replica firearm during the attempted robbery.
- No physical force or contact was made with the attendant.
- The attendant died of a heart attack soon after the incident.
- The defendants were convicted of manslaughter based on their actions and appealed the decision.

## Issues

1. Whether the defendants’ actions could lawfully be said to have caused the victim’s death for the purposes of manslaughter, given there was no physical contact.
2. Whether the jury should have taken into account the victim’s heart condition, which was unknown to the defendants, in assessing criminal responsibility.
3. Whether the objective foreseeability test applies to determine if the actions created a risk of physical harm sufficient for manslaughter liability.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal quashed the manslaughter convictions.
- The court held that to establish liability, it must be shown that a reasonable person would have foreseen a risk of physical harm from the defendants’ actions.
- The jury should not have considered the victim’s heart condition, as the defendants were unaware of it.
- The decision introduced the "reasonably foreseeable" test for causation, emphasizing that hidden weaknesses in the victim are irrelevant if not known to the defendant.

## Legal Principles

- Liability for manslaughter by unlawful act depends on whether a reasonable person would recognize a risk of physical harm, not on the actual extent of force used.
- The objective test is applied, focusing on the viewpoint of a person of normal judgment rather than the unique vulnerabilities of the victim.
- Causation in manslaughter is satisfied if a direct link between the defendant's act and the death is established and the risk would have been apparent to a reasonable person.
- The case distinguishes itself from others, such as R v Watson, by clarifying that defendant’s knowledge of the victim's condition can be relevant, but only when that knowledge is present.

## Conclusion

R v Dawson (1977) reaffirmed the use of the objective reasonable person test in unlawful act manslaughter, holding that liability arises only where physical harm as a result of the defendant’s actions would be foreseeable to an ordinary person, irrespective of the victim’s unknown frailty or the minimal force involved.


R v Dawson (1977) 64 Cr App R 170