R v Lamb [1967] 2 QB 981

Facts

  • Mr. Lamb and his friend O'Donaghue were together when Mr. Lamb, as a practical joke, pointed a revolver at O'Donaghue and pulled the trigger.
  • The revolver had a five-chambered cylinder with two bullets, neither initially aligned with the barrel.
  • Mr. Lamb mistakenly believed the revolver would not fire, unaware that pulling the trigger would rotate the cylinder and align a bullet to be discharged.
  • Mr. Lamb's act resulted in the death of O'Donaghue.
  • Expert evidence supported that such a mistake regarding revolver mechanics was common.
  • At trial, the judge did not instruct the jury to consider whether the necessary mens rea for assault existed.
  • Mr. Lamb was convicted of constructive (unlawful act) manslaughter.

Issues

  1. Whether a conviction for constructive manslaughter requires proof that the base act was both unlawful (a criminal offence) and accompanied by the corresponding mens rea.
  2. Whether Mr. Lamb's genuine mistaken belief about the revolver's mechanism could negate the intent required for assault and thus preclude a manslaughter conviction.
  3. Whether the trial judge erred in failing to direct the jury regarding the necessity of finding mens rea for the base unlawful act.

Decision

  • The Court of Appeal held that for constructive manslaughter, the unlawful act forming the basis of liability must itself be a criminal offence with its own mens rea.
  • Mr. Lamb's honest mistake concerning the operation of the revolver prevented the formation of the requisite intent for an assault.
  • Because the necessary intent for assault was absent, there was no unlawful act to found a conviction for manslaughter.
  • The trial judge's failure to direct the jury on the necessity of finding mens rea for assault was a critical misdirection.
  • The conviction for manslaughter was quashed.

Legal Principles

  • For constructive manslaughter, the predicate act must be both unlawful (a criminal offence and not merely a tort) and committed with the required mens rea.
  • A genuine mistake of fact may negate the mens rea necessary for the base offence, preventing liability for manslaughter.
  • The requirement for a clear judicial direction to the jury concerning the mental element of the base unlawful act is essential.
  • The presence of a dangerous act alone is insufficient; criminal culpability depends on both actus reus and mens rea.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal in R v Lamb [1967] 2 QB 981 clarified that a conviction for constructive manslaughter cannot stand where the defendant’s genuine mistake negates the mens rea for the base unlawful act, here assault, so that no criminal offence forms the basis for liability. The case remains influential for its emphasis on the dual requirements of an unlawful act and mens rea in unlawful act manslaughter.

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