Q.11 Isaac was looking for a car to steal. He saw Joan, aged 80, putting a case onto the rear seat of a car. Isaac
pulled a scarf over his face, banged on the car and shouted loudly at Joan. Joan was instantly terrified and, after a
few seconds, collapsed and fell into the car. Isaac realised that she was unconscious and breathing with difficulty.
In fact, she had suffered a heart attack. In a panic, he pushed her onto the floor of the car, shut the door and ran
off. By the time the car was discovered, Joan had died of a probably cardiac arrest.
Consider Isaac’s criminal liability for the death of Joan (20 marks)
It is submitted that Isaac has satisfied the Mens Rea (MR) for unlawful act manslaughter. However, some issues arise
when considering his Actus Reus (AR), particularly in regards to causation from R v Dawson and the “heart attack
rule” from Lord Denning, which we will discuss when assessing the third section of his AR.
Firstly, we shall assess Isaac’s AR regarding the alleged victim Joan, which will include “an unlawful act that was
objectively dangerous and could have caused some harm but in fact caused death”. We shall deal with the first
section of the AR, which is that Isaac must have committed an unlawful act. An unlawful act refers to anything which
is a crime and tort cases do not satisfy. Omissions also do not satisfy and there has to be an action involved. First of
all, we must identify whether an unlawful act was committed. For this, we will look at the case of R v Lamb wherein
the defendant and the victim were playing with a gun and, not realising it was in the correct position to shoot, the
victim pointed the gun at his friend, pulled the trigger and killed him. We may assess the defendant for assault,
which is causing the victim to impend fear. However, in R v Lamb it was evident that the victim did not impend fear
as he was laughing so the defendant was not guilty. In our case, assault was committed as it is evident that the victim
Joan did impend imminent and personal violence. Moreover, an action must be involved and omissions do not
satisfy. This was shown in the case of R v Lowe where the defendant wilfully neglected his baby son and the son
died. Initially, the defendant was in fact convicted of Unlawful Act Manslaughter but this was later quashed on
appeal because wilful neglection involved a failure to act and this could not support a conviction of Unlawful Act
Manslaughter. In regards to our defendant Isaac, an action was involved, that action being banging on the car and
shouting so an unlawful act has clearly been committed. Therefore, it is evident that the defendant has satisfied the
first element of the Actus Reus and has committed an unlawful act.
Secondly, to satisfy the AR of Unlawful Act Manslaughter, the unlawful act must have been “objectively dangerous
and could have caused some harm”. It does not matter what type of harm could have been caused and whether or
not the defendant foresaw the harm but as long as some harm could have been caused from the unlawful act, the
defendant will be guilty. This is shown in the case of R v Church. In this case, the defendant knocked the victim
unconscious before dumping her body in a river, thinking she was dead. Dumping her body into the river, even if she
were dead, could have caused environmental harm and this is enough to satisfy the second part of the AR.
Therefore, he was found guilty. Regarding our defendant Isaac, by banging on a car loudly and shouting at the Victim
Joan, the some harm he could have caused was psychological harm or even cuts if the window broke so he satisfies
the second part of the AR. Therefore, it is clear that the defendant has satisfied the second element of the AR and his
action was evidently objectively dangerous.
Finally, we shall assess the final part of the AR for unlawful act manslaughter which is that the unlawful act “in fact
caused death” and this is where our issues arise with causation. In our case, the victim died of a heart attack not our
defendant’s actions. Ordinarily, we would apply the thin skull rule. This is where if the victim suffers from a pre-
existing condition, the defendant is still the legal and factual cause of death. This is shown in the case of R v Holland
where a bare-knuckle boxer had a cut and his opponent re-opened the cut, causing infection and death. Despite the
cause of death being the infection, the thin skull rule applied and, because the defendant was wearing a ring making
it an illegal fight, the defendant was found guilty of unlawful act manslaughter. Whilst this is usually the case for
most offences, the rules are slightly different for Unlawful Act Manslaughter and we apply something known as the
heart attack rule. This is where if the defendant died from a heart attack, the defendant will not be guilty and the
thin skull rule will not apply. This rule comes from the case R v Dawson in which the defendant participated in an
armed robbery at a petrol station which led to the death of an attendant from a heart attack. Originally, the
defendant was found guilty as the thin skull rule applied. However, this was appealed and judge Lord Denning
quashed this appeal. He argued that the victim’s heart attack would not be obvious to the ordinary person with the
same knowledge as the defendant and therefore found the defendant not guilty. In the case of the defendant Isaac,
the victim Joan died of a heart attack so therefore, Isaac is not guilty according to Lord Denning’s heart attack rule.
pulled a scarf over his face, banged on the car and shouted loudly at Joan. Joan was instantly terrified and, after a
few seconds, collapsed and fell into the car. Isaac realised that she was unconscious and breathing with difficulty.
In fact, she had suffered a heart attack. In a panic, he pushed her onto the floor of the car, shut the door and ran
off. By the time the car was discovered, Joan had died of a probably cardiac arrest.
Consider Isaac’s criminal liability for the death of Joan (20 marks)
It is submitted that Isaac has satisfied the Mens Rea (MR) for unlawful act manslaughter. However, some issues arise
when considering his Actus Reus (AR), particularly in regards to causation from R v Dawson and the “heart attack
rule” from Lord Denning, which we will discuss when assessing the third section of his AR.
Firstly, we shall assess Isaac’s AR regarding the alleged victim Joan, which will include “an unlawful act that was
objectively dangerous and could have caused some harm but in fact caused death”. We shall deal with the first
section of the AR, which is that Isaac must have committed an unlawful act. An unlawful act refers to anything which
is a crime and tort cases do not satisfy. Omissions also do not satisfy and there has to be an action involved. First of
all, we must identify whether an unlawful act was committed. For this, we will look at the case of R v Lamb wherein
the defendant and the victim were playing with a gun and, not realising it was in the correct position to shoot, the
victim pointed the gun at his friend, pulled the trigger and killed him. We may assess the defendant for assault,
which is causing the victim to impend fear. However, in R v Lamb it was evident that the victim did not impend fear
as he was laughing so the defendant was not guilty. In our case, assault was committed as it is evident that the victim
Joan did impend imminent and personal violence. Moreover, an action must be involved and omissions do not
satisfy. This was shown in the case of R v Lowe where the defendant wilfully neglected his baby son and the son
died. Initially, the defendant was in fact convicted of Unlawful Act Manslaughter but this was later quashed on
appeal because wilful neglection involved a failure to act and this could not support a conviction of Unlawful Act
Manslaughter. In regards to our defendant Isaac, an action was involved, that action being banging on the car and
shouting so an unlawful act has clearly been committed. Therefore, it is evident that the defendant has satisfied the
first element of the Actus Reus and has committed an unlawful act.
Secondly, to satisfy the AR of Unlawful Act Manslaughter, the unlawful act must have been “objectively dangerous
and could have caused some harm”. It does not matter what type of harm could have been caused and whether or
not the defendant foresaw the harm but as long as some harm could have been caused from the unlawful act, the
defendant will be guilty. This is shown in the case of R v Church. In this case, the defendant knocked the victim
unconscious before dumping her body in a river, thinking she was dead. Dumping her body into the river, even if she
were dead, could have caused environmental harm and this is enough to satisfy the second part of the AR.
Therefore, he was found guilty. Regarding our defendant Isaac, by banging on a car loudly and shouting at the Victim
Joan, the some harm he could have caused was psychological harm or even cuts if the window broke so he satisfies
the second part of the AR. Therefore, it is clear that the defendant has satisfied the second element of the AR and his
action was evidently objectively dangerous.
Finally, we shall assess the final part of the AR for unlawful act manslaughter which is that the unlawful act “in fact
caused death” and this is where our issues arise with causation. In our case, the victim died of a heart attack not our
defendant’s actions. Ordinarily, we would apply the thin skull rule. This is where if the victim suffers from a pre-
existing condition, the defendant is still the legal and factual cause of death. This is shown in the case of R v Holland
where a bare-knuckle boxer had a cut and his opponent re-opened the cut, causing infection and death. Despite the
cause of death being the infection, the thin skull rule applied and, because the defendant was wearing a ring making
it an illegal fight, the defendant was found guilty of unlawful act manslaughter. Whilst this is usually the case for
most offences, the rules are slightly different for Unlawful Act Manslaughter and we apply something known as the
heart attack rule. This is where if the defendant died from a heart attack, the defendant will not be guilty and the
thin skull rule will not apply. This rule comes from the case R v Dawson in which the defendant participated in an
armed robbery at a petrol station which led to the death of an attendant from a heart attack. Originally, the
defendant was found guilty as the thin skull rule applied. However, this was appealed and judge Lord Denning
quashed this appeal. He argued that the victim’s heart attack would not be obvious to the ordinary person with the
same knowledge as the defendant and therefore found the defendant not guilty. In the case of the defendant Isaac,
the victim Joan died of a heart attack so therefore, Isaac is not guilty according to Lord Denning’s heart attack rule.
