R v Dawson (1985) 81 Cr App R 150

Facts

• Three men attempted to rob a petrol station while wearing masks; one carried a fake gun.
• The petrol station attendant, aged 60, triggered an alarm, prompting the men to flee.
• The defendants were unaware that the attendant had a heart condition.
• Shortly after the incident, the attendant died from a heart attack.
• The defendants were initially convicted of manslaughter.

Issues

1. Whether liability for unlawful act manslaughter requires foreseeability of harm as assessed by an objective standard.
2. Whether knowledge of the victim's hidden health issues should be considered in determining foreseeability.
3. Whether the harm for unlawful act manslaughter must be physical or if emotional distress is sufficient.

Decision

• The Court of Appeal overturned the manslaughter convictions.
• The Court held that the test for foreseeability is what a reasonable person present at the scene would expect, excluding knowledge of hidden health conditions.
• It was determined that a reasonable person would not have foreseen the risk of a fatal heart attack in these circumstances.
• The Court clarified that only physical injury, not fear or shock alone, satisfies the harm requirement for unlawful act manslaughter.

Legal Principles

• Foreseeability for unlawful act manslaughter must be judged objectively by the standard of a reasonable person present at the scene.
• The defendant's personal characteristics or knowledge, and the victim's hidden vulnerabilities, are excluded from this assessment.
• Legal causation in manslaughter relies on whether the consequence—physical harm—was a reasonably foreseeable result of the unlawful act.
• Emotional harm without accompanying physical injury does not satisfy the requirement for manslaughter.
• The objective standard introduced in this case ensures consistent and fair application of the law.

Conclusion

R v Dawson (1985) 81 Cr App R 150 established that foreseeability in unlawful act manslaughter is determined by what a reasonable person would have foreseen, ignoring hidden vulnerabilities of the victim; this objective standard remains central to the law on manslaughter.