sonbahis girişsonbahissonbahis güncelyakabetyakabet girişsüratbetsüratbet girişhilbethilbet giriştrendbettrendbet girişwinxbetwinxbet girişaresbetaresbet girişhiltonbethiltonbet girişkulisbetkulisbet girişteosbetteosbet girişatlasbetatlasbet girişatlasbetatlasbet girişyakabetyakabet girişaresbetaresbet girişwinxbetwinxbet girişkulisbetkulisbet giriştrendbettrendbet girişhilbethilbet girişsüratbetsüratbet girişhiltonbethiltonbet girişteosbetteosbet girişholiganbetjojobetholiganbet girişjojobet girişcasibom girişvaycasinoholiganbet girişpusulabetjojobet girişholiganbetpusulabetvaycasino girişholiganbet girişgrandpashabetpusulabetcratosroyalbetbahsegelsekabetvaycasino girişcasibom girişaresbetaresbet girişwinxbetwinxbet girişatlasbetatlasbet girişhilbethilbet giriştrendbettrendbet girişkulisbetkulisbet girişyakabetyakabet girişteosbetteosbet girişsüratbetsüratbet girişhiltonbethiltonbet girişエクスネスvaycasinocasibomcasibomjojobetholiganbettrendbettrendbet girişhilbethilbet girişkulisbetkulisbet girişyakabetyakabet girişsüratbetsüratbet girişhiltonbethiltonbet girişteosbetteosbet girişaresbetaresbet girişwinxbetwinxbet girişatlasbet girişatlasbetteosbet girişteosbetwinxbetwinxbet girişatlasbetatlasbet girişkulisbetkulisbet girişsüratbetsüratbet girişhiltonbethiltonbet girişyakabetyakabet giriştrendbettrendbet girişhilbethilbet girişaresbetaresbet girişteosbetteosbet girişwinxbetwinxbet girişatlasbetatlasbet girişkulisbetkulisbet girişhiltonbethiltonbet girişsüratbetsüratbet girişyakabetyakabet girişaresbetaresbet giriştrendbettrendbet girişhilbethilbet girişyakabetyakabet girişaresbetaresbet girişkulisbetkulisbet girişatlasbetatlasbet girişsüratbetsüratbet girişhiltonbethiltonbet giriştrendbettrendbet girişhilbethilbet girişteosbetteosbet girişwinxbetwinxbet girişextrabetextrabet girişibizabetibizabet girişkingbettingkingbetting girişbetciobetcio girişkulisbetkulisbet girişatlasbetatlasbet girişsüratbetsüratbet girişyakabetyakabet girişaresbetaresbet girişhilbethilbet girişteosbetteosbet girişhiltonbethiltonbet giriştrendbettrendbet girişwinxbetwinxbet girişextrabetextrabet girişibizabetibizabet girişkingbettingkingbetting girişbetciobetcio girişcoinbarcoinbar girişodeonbetodeonbet girişlunabetlunabet girişmatbetmatbet girişmeritkingmeritking girişjojobetatlasbetatlasbet girişsüratbetsüratbet girişaresbetaresbet girişmeritkingmeritking girişmavibetmavibet girişhızlıcasinohızlıcasino giriştrendbettrendbet girişbahiscasinobahiscasino girişwinxbetwinxbet girişkulisbetkulisbet girişlunabetlunabet girişlunabetlunabet girişteosbet girişteosbetteosbetmedusabahis girişmedusabahismedusabahisodeonbet girişodeonbetodeonbetcoinbar girişcoinbarcoinbarkalebet girişkalebetkalebetefesbet girişefesbetefesbetmeritking girişmeritkingmeritkingnakitbahis girişnakitbahisnakitbahiselitcasino girişelitcasinoelitcasinobetbox girişbetboxbetboxartemisbet girişartemisbetartemisbetartemisbetartemisbet girişartemisbetartemisbet girişkulisbetkulisbet girişkulisbetkulisbet girişmeritkingmeritking girişmeritkingmeritking girişpusulabetpusulabetrinabetrinabetbetkolikbetkolikkulisbetkulisbetbahiscasinobahiscasinomegabahismegabahisartemisbetartemisbetlunabetlunabetmeritkingmeritkingibizabetibizabet girişextrabetextrabet girişkingbettingkingbetting girişbetciobetcio girişpusulabetpusulabet girişnakitbahisnakitbahis girişhilbethilbet girişhiltonbet girişhiltonbetlunabetlunabet girişmatbetmatbet girişholiganbetholiganbet girişjojobetjojobetholiganbetjojobetjojobet
Skip to content
Home » DPP v Newbury and Jones

DPP v Newbury and Jones

DPP v Newbury and Jones is a landmark decision of the House of Lords on the law of constructive manslaughter. The case clarified an important and often misunderstood aspect of criminal liability—whether a defendant must foresee harm for a conviction of unlawful act manslaughter.

DPP v Newbury and Jones firmly established that the test for dangerousness in constructive manslaughter is objective, not subjective. The decision continues to play a significant role in understanding how courts assess unlawful acts that result in death, particularly where the defendants did not intend or foresee the fatal outcome.

Background and Facts of DPP v Newbury and Jones

The facts of DPP v Newbury and Jones are straightforward and undisputed. Two boys, both aged 15, were on a railway bridge. Workmen had left a paving stone on the parapet of the bridge. As a train approached, the boys pushed or threw the paving stone off the bridge.

The paving stone fell onto the moving train, went through the glass window of the train cab, and struck the railway guard. The guard suffered fatal injuries and died as a result.

There was no suggestion that the boys were affected by drink or drugs at the time of the incident. The act itself—pushing the paving stone from the bridge—was deliberate. However, the boys claimed that they did not foresee that their actions would cause harm to anyone.

Procedural History

Following the death of the railway guard, the boys were charged and convicted of manslaughter at trial. Their convictions were based on the doctrine of constructive manslaughter, also known as unlawful act manslaughter.

The boys appealed their convictions to the Court of Appeal, arguing that they had not foreseen the risk of harm and therefore should not be criminally liable for manslaughter. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions.

The boys then appealed to the House of Lords. In DPP v Newbury and Jones, the House of Lords considered a certified question of law relating to foresight and criminal liability for manslaughter.

Certified Question of Law

The certified question placed before the House of Lords in DPP v Newbury and Jones was:

“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 question directly raised the issue of whether subjective foresight of harm is a necessary requirement for a conviction of constructive manslaughter.

Legal Issue

The central legal issue in DPP v Newbury and Jones was whether, in cases of unlawful act manslaughter, the prosecution must prove that the defendant actually foresaw that their conduct might cause harm to another person.

In other words, the House of Lords had to decide whether the test for dangerousness in constructive manslaughter was subjective (based on the defendant’s state of mind) or objective (based on what a reasonable person would recognise).

DPP v Newbury and Jones Judgment

The House of Lords dismissed the appeal. In DPP v Newbury and Jones, the Lords held that there is no requirement for the prosecution to prove that the defendant foresaw that some harm would result from their actions.

The correct legal test, the House confirmed, is objective. The court must ask whether the unlawful act was one that all sober and reasonable people would recognise as dangerous.

The House of Lords reaffirmed that the applicable law was that stated in R v Larkin, as modified by R v Church. These cases established that an unlawful act is “dangerous” if it carries the risk of some harm, even if that harm is not serious.

Reasoning and Legal Principle

In DPP v Newbury and Jones, the House of Lords rejected the argument that lack of foresight should excuse the defendants from liability. The focus was placed squarely on the nature of the act itself, rather than on the defendants’ appreciation of risk.

Lord Salmon delivered an important statement clarifying the test for dangerousness. He stated that the test is not whether the accused recognised the danger, but whether all sober and reasonable people would recognise the act as dangerous. This statement reinforced the objective nature of the test and made it clear that personal awareness of risk is not required.

The House of Lords also addressed earlier judicial comments that had suggested otherwise. In particular, Lord Denning’s statement on foresight in Gray v Barr was described as erroneous and not binding on the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal. This clarification was significant, as it resolved confusion created by earlier case law.

Relationship with Earlier Authorities

The decision in DPP v Newbury and Jones firmly relied on the principles laid down in R v Larkin and R v Church. These cases established that for constructive manslaughter:

  1. There must be an unlawful act.
  2. The act must be dangerous, judged objectively.
  3. The act must cause death.

By reaffirming these principles, DPP v Newbury and Jones confirmed that subjective foresight of harm is not part of the test.

The House of Lords also clarified that Lord Denning’s comments in Gray v Barr should not be followed in criminal law. This ensured consistency in the application of the objective test across manslaughter cases.

Mens Rea and the Unlawful Act

Although foresight of harm was not required, DPP v Newbury and Jones did not eliminate the need for mens rea altogether. The defendants still had to possess the mens rea for the unlawful act itself.

Later commentary, including reference to R v Goodfellow, suggests that the unlawful act in this case could be characterised as reckless criminal damage. This reinforces the idea that while foresight of harm is unnecessary, there must still be a culpable mental state for the initial unlawful conduct.

Conclusion

DPP v Newbury and Jones remains a cornerstone case in English criminal law on unlawful act manslaughter. The House of Lords decisively confirmed that subjective foresight of harm is not required for a conviction. Instead, the test is whether the unlawful act was objectively dangerous, as recognised by all sober and reasonable people.

Through its reliance on R v Larkin and R v Church, and its rejection of misleading dicta from Gray v Barr, DPP v Newbury and Jones brought clarity and consistency to the law of constructive manslaughter. The case continues to guide courts, students, and practitioners in understanding how criminal responsibility is determined when an unlawful act leads to death.