DPP v Newbury and Jones [1977]

Court: House of Lords

Facts: The defendants (Ds), both 15 years old, pushed a paving stone from a bridge, which subsequently fell and killed a railway guard. They were convicted of constructive manslaughter. The defendants appealed the conviction on the grounds that they did not foresee the danger associated with their actions.

Issue: Whether the objective test for dangerousness in constructive manslaughter requires proof of the defendants' subjective foresight of danger.

Held: The House of Lords dismissed the appeal, ruling that it is unnecessary to prove the defendants' subjective foresight of danger. The court confirmed that the test for whether the unlawful act is likely to cause harm is an objective one.

Key Judicial Statements: Lord Salmon stated: "The test is still the objective test. In judging whether the act was dangerous, the test is not did the accused recognise that it was dangerous but would all sober and reasonable people recognise its danger."

💡 Leveluplaw: the principle that the assessment of dangerousness in constructive manslaughter is an objective inquiry. It underscores the legal standard that focuses on how a reasonable person would perceive the danger of the act, promoting accountability for actions that pose a risk to others, regardless of the defendant's subjective understanding of that risk. This ruling plays a significant role in shaping the legal framework for understanding constructive manslaughter in English law.