“Court establishes objective test for dangerous unlawful act in manslaughter cases”
Church had a fight with a woman in his van by a river, knocked her unconscious, and believing her to be dead, threw her body into the river. The woman actually drowned, having been alive when thrown into the water.
What test should be applied to determine whether an unlawful act is sufficiently dangerous to constitute manslaughter when death results?
For unlawful act manslaughter, the unlawful act must be such that 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.
Church established the definitive objective test for unlawful act manslaughter that remains the leading authority today. It clarified that only some physical harm need be foreseeable to reasonable observers, not serious harm or death.
You're reading the free summary of R v Church. 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
R v Church [1966] 1 QB 59 (CA)
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.