R v Dawson (1977) 64 Cr App R 170

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.

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