R v Church [1966]
Share
R v Church [1966] 1 QB 59 is an English criminal law case that revolved around the various bases of manslaughter and the necessary directions given to the jury.
The appellant was involved in a tragic incident following a confrontation with Sylvia Notts. The appellant, feeling mocked and humiliated by Notts, engaged in a fight with her, ultimately knocking her unconscious. In his attempt to revive her, he was unsuccessful, and believing her to be dead, he disposed of her body in a river. However, subsequent medical evidence revealed that Notts had drowned, indicating that she was alive when thrown into the river.
During the trial, the judge made several errors in directing the jury, leading to a conviction for manslaughter instead of murder. The appellant appealed the conviction on the grounds of misdirection. The Court, while acknowledging the errors in the judge's direction to the jury, upheld the conviction for manslaughter, deeming it to be safe. Edmund Davies LJ, in delivering the judgment, set forth the applicable test for constructive manslaughter as follows:
"...an unlawful act causing the death of another cannot, simply because it is an unlawful act, render a manslaughter verdict inevitable. For such a verdict inexorably to follow, the unlawful act must be such as all sober and reasonable people would inevitably recognise must subject the other person to, at least, the risk of some harm resulting therefrom, albeit not serious harm."
This legal principle underscores the importance of assessing the foreseeability and inherent risk associated with the unlawful act. It introduces a threshold that necessitates an objective evaluation, ensuring that the nature of the act inherently signifies a recognisable risk of harm. By emphasising a collective and reasoned perspective, the conclusion in R v Church safeguards against the imposition of manslaughter liability unless the unlawful act inherently poses a clear and foreseeable risk of harm that sober and reasonable people would acknowledge.
The appellant was involved in a tragic incident following a confrontation with Sylvia Notts. The appellant, feeling mocked and humiliated by Notts, engaged in a fight with her, ultimately knocking her unconscious. In his attempt to revive her, he was unsuccessful, and believing her to be dead, he disposed of her body in a river. However, subsequent medical evidence revealed that Notts had drowned, indicating that she was alive when thrown into the river.
During the trial, the judge made several errors in directing the jury, leading to a conviction for manslaughter instead of murder. The appellant appealed the conviction on the grounds of misdirection. The Court, while acknowledging the errors in the judge's direction to the jury, upheld the conviction for manslaughter, deeming it to be safe. Edmund Davies LJ, in delivering the judgment, set forth the applicable test for constructive manslaughter as follows:
"...an unlawful act causing the death of another cannot, simply because it is an unlawful act, render a manslaughter verdict inevitable. For such a verdict inexorably to follow, the unlawful act must be such as all sober and reasonable people would inevitably recognise must subject the other person to, at least, the risk of some harm resulting therefrom, albeit not serious harm."
This legal principle underscores the importance of assessing the foreseeability and inherent risk associated with the unlawful act. It introduces a threshold that necessitates an objective evaluation, ensuring that the nature of the act inherently signifies a recognisable risk of harm. By emphasising a collective and reasoned perspective, the conclusion in R v Church safeguards against the imposition of manslaughter liability unless the unlawful act inherently poses a clear and foreseeable risk of harm that sober and reasonable people would acknowledge.
