R v Newbury and Jones [1977] AC 500

KEY POINTS

• Crime involves any action or omission that breaks the law and can lead to punishment. It spans minor offenses like speeding to severe felonies like murder, impacts social order, and harms individuals and communities. The criminal justice system deals with crime through investigation, prosecution, and punishment.

• Homicide is when one person kills another. It can be lawful, such as in self-defense, or unlawful, like in cases of murder or manslaughter. Legal distinctions in homicide are based on intent and other circumstances, affecting the severity of charges and penalties.

• Mens rea, meaning "guilty mind," is the mental state or intent needed to establish criminal liability. It helps determine if a crime was committed with purpose, recklessness, or negligence, influencing the level of culpability.

• An unlawful and dangerous act resulting in death, or constructive manslaughter, occurs when an inherently risky illegal act leads to a person's death. It holds individuals responsible for unintended deaths caused by their unlawful behavior.

• A test in criminal law is a set of criteria used to determine elements like mens rea or the lawfulness of an act. These tests help judges and juries evaluate evidence to ensure consistent and fair legal decisions.

FACTS

• Neil Newbury and Robert Jones (“Appellants”), two fifteen-year-old boys, had been convicted of manslaughter following the death of Maurice Davies (“Railway guard”).

  • The incident occurred when the boys pushed a portion of a paving stone, which had been left by workmen on the parapet of a railway bridge, into the path of an oncoming train.

  • The stone shattered the glass window of the train's driving cab, striking and killing the Railway guard inside.

• On appeal, the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) upheld the convictions of the Appellants.

• Despite this, the court certified a significant point of law, asking:

Can a Defendant be properly convicted of manslaughter, when his mind is not affected by drink or drugs, if he did not foresee that his act might cause harm to another?

• This legal question was intended to clarify the requirements for a manslaughter conviction, specifically addressing the role of foreseeability in determining criminal liability.

JUDGEMENT

• Upon hearing the appeal, the Court ruled to dismiss the appeals, thereby upholding the convictions for manslaughter.

  • The Court held that an accused could be found guilty of manslaughter if it was established that the accused had intentionally committed an act that was both unlawful and dangerous and that this act, albeit inadvertently, caused the death of another person.

  • The Court further determined that it was not necessary to prove that the Accused had knowledge of the act's unlawfulness or danger.

  • The appropriate test for establishing manslaughter remained the objective test:

    • whether all sober and reasonable people would recognize the act as dangerous.

  • It was irrelevant whether the accused himself recognized the inherent danger in the act.

• This judgment reinforced the objective standard in manslaughter cases, emphasizing that the accused's personal perception of danger was not a requisite consideration in determining criminal liability.

COMMENTARY

• This case is about the conviction of two fifteen-year-old boys for manslaughter after they caused the death of a railway guard by pushing a stone onto a train, which broke the cab's glass and killed the guard.

• The central issue was whether the boys could be convicted if they did not foresee their actions might cause harm.

• The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, maintaining the manslaughter conviction, and established that an accused could be guilty of manslaughter if they committed an act that was unlawful and dangerous, even if they didn't recognize its potential harm.

• The court ruled that the appropriate test for culpability is objective—whether a reasonable person would consider the act dangerous—rather than based on the accused's subjective awareness.

• This judgment shows that an act's inherent danger, not the Defendant's perception of it, can determine criminal liability for manslaughter.

ORIGINAL ANALYSIS

• Two boys pushed a slab of concrete of a bridge, which smashed a train windscreen, killing the driver.

• They were convicted and lost their appeal.

• The CA held that one could be guilty of manslaughter if the defendant intended an act that was unlawful ad dangerous and that the act inadvertently caused death.

  • The test for “dangerous” is objective: do all reasonable people recognise the danger?

Lord Salmon

• Reg v Lamb was only overturned due to the judicial misdirection, NOT because the trial judge erred in law.

• Salmon says that some crimes require specific intent (e.g. murder which requires intent to murder or cause GBH) whereas some are basic intent (requirement of intent to do the actions that lead to harm: NOT an intent that the consequences themselves should happen). Manslaughter is basic intent, so that causing death by “unlawful and dangerous activity” IS manslaughter, as is criminal negligence.

• This answers in the affirmative that where a defendant did not foresee that his actions may cause harm, it is still possible to convict him of manslaughter (provided he was engaged in an unlawful and dangerous act, or where he was criminally negligent). 

RELATED CASES

• R v Lamb