Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Judges
- LORD SALMON
- LORD JUSTICE LAWTON
- LORD DENNING
See more information ...
Click here to read the full judgment
DPP v. Newbury
Smart Summary
Factual and Procedural Background
A train travelling between two locations in The State was approaching a bridge. Two individuals, each 15 years old (collectively referred to as “the Appellants”), were observed on the bridge pushing part of a paving stone onto the track. The fragment smashed through the cab window, fatally striking the train guard.
The Appellants were jointly charged with manslaughter in the Crown Court. After what the trial judge—Judge Salmon—described as a fair and lucid summing-up, a jury convicted both Appellants. The Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) dismissed their appeals against conviction and sentence but certified the following point of law of general public importance for the House of Lords:
“Can a defendant be properly convicted of manslaughter, when not affected by drink or drugs, if he did not foresee that his act might cause harm to another?”
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether an accused can be convicted of involuntary (unlawful-act) manslaughter without proof that he foresaw the risk of harm resulting from his action.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellants’ Arguments
- Represented by Attorney Lewis, the Appellants contended that recent authority—particularly Gray v. Barr—required proof that they foresaw the likelihood of frightening or harming someone before an unlawful-act manslaughter conviction could stand.
- They relied on R v. Lamb to argue that a “guilty mind” involving foresight of harm is always necessary for manslaughter.
- The trial judge’s failure to direct the jury that they must find such foresight, it was argued, rendered the convictions unsafe.
Respondent’s Arguments
- The Director of Public Prosecutions maintained that the established objective test from R v. Larkin and R v. Church remained good law: it suffices that the defendant intentionally performed an unlawful act that sober and reasonable people would recognise as dangerous.
- The Respondent submitted that Gray v. Barr did not alter this principle and that the trial judge’s directions faithfully reflected settled law.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| R v. Larkin [1943] 1 K.B. 174 |
Unlawful and dangerous act causing death constitutes manslaughter; objective dangerousness test. |
Reaffirmed as the correct statement of law; no need to prove the accused foresaw harm. |
| R v. Church [1966] 1 Q.B. 59 |
Defines “dangerous” as an act that sober and reasonable people would recognise as exposing others to risk of some harm. |
Adopted by the trial judge and endorsed by the House as accurately reflecting settled law. |
| Gray v. Barr [1971] 2 Q.B. 554 |
Contains dicta suggesting a requirement of foresight of harm in unlawful-act manslaughter. |
Distinguished; the House held it was not intended to change the law and, if read to do so, should not be followed. |
| R v. Lamb [1967] 2 Q.B. 981 |
Illustrates that a guilty mind is required for manslaughter but was decided on misdirection grounds. |
Cited by Appellants; House held it does not contradict the objective test in Larkin/Church. |
| R v. Lipman [1970] 1 Q.B. 152 |
Authority stating that Church affected the type of act, not the requisite intention. |
Quoted approvingly to reinforce that the law had not shifted to require subjective foresight. |
| DPP v. Majewski [1976] |
Clarifies that Criminal Justice Act 1967, s.8, concerns proof of mental state, not when it is needed. |
Cited to show that post-1967 legislation did not alter the constituents of unlawful-act manslaughter. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The House, led by Judge Salmon, held that the jury need only find that the defendant intentionally performed an unlawful act that sober and reasonable people would inevitably recognise as dangerous. The critical steps in its reasoning were:
- Objective Dangerousness: Citing Larkin and Church, the court confirmed that dangerousness is assessed objectively; the defendant’s personal foresight is immaterial.
- Unaltered Authority: Neither Gray v. Barr nor R v. Lamb had modified this rule. If Gray v. Barr were read to impose a subjective element, that reading was rejected.
- Requirement of a “Guilty Mind” Satisfied: In unlawful-act manslaughter, the requisite mens rea is the basic intention to perform the unlawful act. By deliberately pushing the stone, the Appellants possessed that intention.
- Legislative Context: Section 8 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 pertains only to evidential matters; it does not redefine the elements of manslaughter.
- Policy Consistency: Absent legislative change, the House saw no reason to depart from long-standing doctrine.
Holding and Implications
Appeals DISMISSED.
The convictions for manslaughter stand. The House of Lords reaffirmed the objective test for unlawful-act manslaughter, clarifying that subjective foresight of harm is unnecessary. The decision does not create new precedent but consolidates existing authority, providing guidance that any future change must come from legislation rather than judicial reinterpretation.
Click here to read the full judgment