The case of R v Church [1966] 1 QB 59 is a leading authority in English criminal law concerning the offence of manslaughter, specifically constructive manslaughter, also known as unlawful act manslaughter. It is significant for establishing the objective test that must be satisfied before liability for manslaughter can be imposed. The case demonstrates the importance of foreseeability and the standard of the “sober and reasonable person” when considering whether an unlawful act gives rise to the necessary risk of harm.
Facts of R v Church Case
Mr Church and the victim, Sylvia Notts, were in a van for sexual purposes. During this encounter, the victim began mocking him. A fight followed, during which Mr Church struck her, leaving her semi-conscious or unconscious.
Believing he had seriously harmed her and unable to revive her after several attempts, Mr Church panicked. Thinking she might already be dead, he placed her in the River Ouse to dispose of her body. However, medical evidence later revealed that she had drowned, meaning she was still alive when she was thrown into the water.
When her body was recovered, the cause of death was confirmed as drowning. At trial, Mr Church was convicted of manslaughter. He then appealed against his conviction, challenging the trial judge’s directions to the jury.
Issues Raised
The appeal in R v Church centred on several key issues:
- Jury directions on criminal negligence and recklessness: The defence argued that the trial judge had wrongly instructed the jury about recklessness, and that negligence directions needed to be more carefully tailored to the circumstances.
- Basis of manslaughter conviction: Mr Church argued that his guilty verdict could not rest on criminal negligence, as the jury was not properly directed on it. Nor could it be based on provocation, as the facts did not support that ground. The only possible basis, therefore, was constructive manslaughter through an unlawful act.
- Relevance of mistaken belief about death: He further contended that his mistaken belief about the victim being dead when he disposed of her body was relevant to the issue of mens rea. He claimed that the jury had been wrongly directed that this belief was irrelevant.
Decision of the Court in R v Church
The Court of Appeal dismissed Mr Church’s appeal, upholding the conviction for manslaughter. However, the Court clarified several important legal principles.
- Jury directions on recklessness and negligence: The Court explained that the directions required on criminal negligence depend on the circumstances of the case. In this case, it was considered sufficient for the trial judge to direct the jury on recklessness rather than negligence.
- Unlawful act and risk of harm: The Court confirmed that the commission of an unlawful act is not, in itself, enough to make a manslaughter conviction inevitable. For an act to amount to constructive manslaughter, it must be such that all sober and reasonable people would inevitably recognise it as exposing the victim to the risk of at least some harm. The harm need not be serious, but it must be foreseeable in an objective sense.
- Misdirection regarding mistaken belief: The Court accepted that the trial judge had misdirected the jury by instructing them that Mr Church’s belief in the victim’s death when he threw her into the river was irrelevant. In fact, the belief was part of the circumstances to be considered in assessing mens rea.
- Safety of the conviction: Despite this misdirection, the Court held that the conviction for manslaughter remained safe. On proper direction, the jury would necessarily have reached the same verdict.
Rule of Law Established
The principle emerging from R v Church is central to the doctrine of constructive manslaughter. The rule of law is that:
- An unlawful act causing death does not automatically amount to manslaughter.
- For liability to arise, the act must be such that a reasonable and sober person would inevitably recognise it as exposing another to the risk of some harm.
- The harm foreseen does not need to be serious, but the risk of harm must be obvious and inherent in the act itself.
This rule requires an objective test, focusing not on the defendant’s personal belief or foresight, but on what the reasonable person would recognise.
Conclusion
The case of R v Church [1966] 1 QB 59 is a cornerstone decision in the law of manslaughter. It established that liability for constructive manslaughter depends not merely on the commission of an unlawful act but on whether that act would be recognised by reasonable people as carrying a risk of some harm. Despite errors in the trial judge’s directions, the Court of Appeal upheld the conviction for manslaughter, underscoring the importance of the objective test and the principle of foreseeability in unlawful act manslaughter.