## Facts

- The defendants committed a burglary by entering the home of an 87-year-old man.
- Upon entry, the victim was present and his poor health became apparent during the incident.
- The defendants' awareness of the elderly victim’s physical vulnerability arose while the offense was ongoing.
- Initially, entering the property alone may not have appeared dangerous, but circumstances changed as the defendants interacted with the victim and observed his condition.

## Issues

1. Whether facts learned during the commission of an unlawful act must be considered when assessing the risk of harm.
2. Whether the objective test for risk of harm, as set out in Church [1966] 1 QB 59, requires adaptation in light of new information acquired during the act.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal held the objective test for risk of harm includes consideration of facts learned during the unlawful act.
- The test is whether a reasonable person, in the defendant’s position and knowing what the defendant knew at the time, would recognize the act as creating a risk of some physical harm.
- The defendants’ awareness of the victim’s frailty during the incident altered the assessment of risk.
- If new information emerges that increases the risk of harm, the act may become dangerous even if it was not initially so.

## Legal Principles

- The objective test for unlawful act manslaughter focuses on whether a reasonable person would recognize the risk of some harm.
- Facts discovered during the commission of an offense must be included in assessing risk.
- Defendant liability for harm is linked to awareness of new circumstances that render the act risky.
- The principle is distinct from R v Dawson (1985) 81 Cr App R 150, which excluded hidden vulnerabilities unknown to defendants, whereas Watson addresses observable facts acquired during the act.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeal in R v Watson established that a defendant’s liability for unlawful act manslaughter extends to situations where knowledge gained during the offense increases the risk of harm, thereby requiring that the objective test for risk account for evolving circumstances and the defendant’s awareness at each stage of their actions.


R v Watson [1989] 1 WLR 684