Unlawful act manslaughter: the objective dangerousness test (R v Church)
During an argument in a pub in Hull, Leon Ford throws a heavy glass ashtray towards Femi Adeyemi, intending only to frighten him and meaning it to miss. It strikes Femi on the temple and he dies. The jury accept that Leon genuinely did not foresee that Femi might be harmed. They are sure that throwing the ashtray was an assault, and that all sober and reasonable people would have realised it carried a risk of some harm to Femi. Leon is charged with manslaughter.
Which of the following best describes Leon's liability for unlawful act manslaughter?
Choose one answer to see the reasoning.
Worked answer
Correct answer C: He is guilty, because he committed a criminal act that all sober and reasonable people would realise risked some harm, and it caused Femi's death.
THE RULE TO REMEMBER
Unlawful act manslaughter requires a criminal act that all sober and reasonable people would realise carried a risk of some harm, which causes death; the test of danger is objective.
Unlawful act manslaughter: the objective dangerousness test (R v Church)
Unlawful act manslaughter requires that the defendant intentionally did an act which was a crime, that the act was dangerous, and that it caused death. Dangerousness is judged objectively: the act must be one which all sober and reasonable people would realise carried the risk of some harm, not necessarily serious harm, to another (R v Church [1966] 1 QB 59, approved in DPP v Newbury [1977] AC 500 and restated in R v Jogee [2016] UKSC 8). The defendant need not himself foresee any harm. Throwing the ashtray to frighten Femi was an assault, which is a crime. The jury are sure that sober and reasonable people would have recognised a risk of some harm, and the ashtray caused Femi's death. Leon is therefore guilty of manslaughter, despite his own lack of foresight.
Why A is wrong: The dangerousness test is objective; Leon's own lack of foresight is irrelevant.
Why B is wrong: Only a risk of some harm, not necessarily serious harm, need be recognisable to sober and reasonable people. (A serious and obvious risk of death is the different test for gross negligence manslaughter.)
Why D is wrong: Murder requires an intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm, which Leon did not have.
Why E is wrong: An assault, including one intended only to cause fear, is a crime and can be the unlawful act.
A little more practice done.
Related questions
Gross negligence manslaughter: the risk must be of death, not serious injury (R v Rose)
Which of the following best describes whether the judge's direction was correct?
Oblique intention and the virtual certainty direction (R v Woollin)
Which of the following is the correct direction the judge should have given on intention?
Transferred malice where the blow strikes an unintended victim
Which of the following best describes Ryan's liability for Leah's death?
A GOOD HABIT, DELIVERED
Tomorrow's question.
In your inbox.
One free question a day, with the answer and reasoning.
No course pitches. Just your daily practice.