“Unlawful act manslaughter requires no foresight of harm by defendant”
Two teenagers pushed a paving stone from a railway bridge onto a passing train below. The stone crashed through the cab window, killing the train driver. The defendants argued they had not foreseen that anyone might be harmed by their actions.
Whether foresight of the risk of harm by the defendant was a necessary element of unlawful act manslaughter, or whether an objective test of dangerousness sufficed.
The House of Lords held that the defendants were guilty of manslaughter. Foresight of harm by the defendant was not required for unlawful act manslaughter.
This case provides the definitive test for unlawful act manslaughter in English law. It's fundamental for understanding how criminal liability for homicide can arise from relatively minor unlawful acts that result in death unexpectedly.
You're reading the free summary of Manslaughter — DPP v Newbury and Jones. Create a free account to unlock the full reasoning, the cited authorities and the verbatim judgment — plus structured briefs for 412,000+ UK judgments.
No card required. Free forever.
OSCOLA Citation
DPP v Newbury and Jones [1977] AC 500 (HL)
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Falls back to Google for old citations BAILII catalogues separately
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.