Breadcrumbs Section. Click here to navigate to respective pages.
Chapter
Chapter
R v Ball [1989] Crim LR 730 (CA) Facts: The defendant shot a neighbour. At his trial, the defendant’s defence was lack of intention to kill or cause harm: he thought he had loaded the gun with a blank cartridge. It appeared that he had previously attempted to fire two such blanks to scare and frighten the deceased from his land. For reasons which were not clear they had not detonated. He said that he kept live and blank cartridges together in the pocket of his overalls in the house. He had grabbed a handful when he had picked up the gun, intending only to frighten the deceased. Held, dismissing the appeal: R v Daweson (1985) 81 Cr App R 150 went no further than showing that the sober and reasonable man must look at the unlawful act to see if it was dangerous and not at peculiarities of the victim; in that case the victim had a heart condition. In cases of involuntary manslaughter, there was a distinction between unlawful and lawful acts resulting in death. Where the act was unlawful, the question for the jury was whether it was also dangerous in the sense that all sober and reasonable people would inevitably realise that it would subject the victim to the risk of some harm, albeit not serious harm. Questions of gross or criminal negligence were not material. In many cases the judge might have to give a direction on the question of a lawful act and gross or criminal negligence because the jury might not accept that an accused deliberately did an unlawful act. But in this case it was accepted on behalf of the appellant that he had unlawfully assaulted the deceased. His act in firing at the deceased was ‘an act directed at the victim’ (per Waller LJ in R v Dalby (1982) 74 Cr App R 348 at 352), with ‘no fresh intervening cause between the act and the death’ (per Lord Lane CJ in R v Goodfellow (1986) 83 Cr App R 23). He had used his own cartridges and loaded the gun himself; no other agency was involved. In manslaughter arising from an unlawful and dangerous act, the accused’s state of mind was relevant only to establish (a) that the act was committed intentionally; and (b) that it was an unlawful act (DPP v Newbury (1977) 62 Cr App R 291). Once (a) and (b) were established, the question of whether the act was dangerous was to be judged not by the appellant’s appreciation but by that of the sober reasonable man, and it was impossible to impute into his appreciation the mistaken belief that what he was doing was not dangerous because he thought he had a blank cartridge in the chamber. At that stage, his intention, foresight or knowledge was irrelevant. Does the dangerous criminal act have to be directed at the victim?
DOI link for R v Ball [1989] Crim LR 730 (CA) Facts: The defendant shot a neighbour. At his trial, the defendant’s defence was lack of intention to kill or cause harm: he thought he had loaded the gun with a blank cartridge. It appeared that he had previously attempted to fire two such blanks to scare and frighten the deceased from his land. For reasons which were not clear they had not detonated. He said that he kept live and blank cartridges together in the pocket of his overalls in the house. He had grabbed a handful when he had picked up the gun, intending only to frighten the deceased. Held, dismissing the appeal: R v Daweson (1985) 81 Cr App R 150 went no further than showing that the sober and reasonable man must look at the unlawful act to see if it was dangerous and not at peculiarities of the victim; in that case the victim had a heart condition. In cases of involuntary manslaughter, there was a distinction between unlawful and lawful acts resulting in death. Where the act was unlawful, the question for the jury was whether it was also dangerous in the sense that all sober and reasonable people would inevitably realise that it would subject the victim to the risk of some harm, albeit not serious harm. Questions of gross or criminal negligence were not material. In many cases the judge might have to give a direction on the question of a lawful act and gross or criminal negligence because the jury might not accept that an accused deliberately did an unlawful act. But in this case it was accepted on behalf of the appellant that he had unlawfully assaulted the deceased. His act in firing at the deceased was ‘an act directed at the victim’ (per Waller LJ in R v Dalby (1982) 74 Cr App R 348 at 352), with ‘no fresh intervening cause between the act and the death’ (per Lord Lane CJ in R v Goodfellow (1986) 83 Cr App R 23). He had used his own cartridges and loaded the gun himself; no other agency was involved. In manslaughter arising from an unlawful and dangerous act, the accused’s state of mind was relevant only to establish (a) that the act was committed intentionally; and (b) that it was an unlawful act (DPP v Newbury (1977) 62 Cr App R 291). Once (a) and (b) were established, the question of whether the act was dangerous was to be judged not by the appellant’s appreciation but by that of the sober reasonable man, and it was impossible to impute into his appreciation the mistaken belief that what he was doing was not dangerous because he thought he had a blank cartridge in the chamber. At that stage, his intention, foresight or knowledge was irrelevant. Does the dangerous criminal act have to be directed at the victim?
R v Ball [1989] Crim LR 730 (CA) Facts: The defendant shot a neighbour. At his trial, the defendant’s defence was lack of intention to kill or cause harm: he thought he had loaded the gun with a blank cartridge. It appeared that he had previously attempted to fire two such blanks to scare and frighten the deceased from his land. For reasons which were not clear they had not detonated. He said that he kept live and blank cartridges together in the pocket of his overalls in the house. He had grabbed a handful when he had picked up the gun, intending only to frighten the deceased. Held, dismissing the appeal: R v Daweson (1985) 81 Cr App R 150 went no further than showing that the sober and reasonable man must look at the unlawful act to see if it was dangerous and not at peculiarities of the victim; in that case the victim had a heart condition. In cases of involuntary manslaughter, there was a distinction between unlawful and lawful acts resulting in death. Where the act was unlawful, the question for the jury was whether it was also dangerous in the sense that all sober and reasonable people would inevitably realise that it would subject the victim to the risk of some harm, albeit not serious harm. Questions of gross or criminal negligence were not material. In many cases the judge might have to give a direction on the question of a lawful act and gross or criminal negligence because the jury might not accept that an accused deliberately did an unlawful act. But in this case it was accepted on behalf of the appellant that he had unlawfully assaulted the deceased. His act in firing at the deceased was ‘an act directed at the victim’ (per Waller LJ in R v Dalby (1982) 74 Cr App R 348 at 352), with ‘no fresh intervening cause between the act and the death’ (per Lord Lane CJ in R v Goodfellow (1986) 83 Cr App R 23). He had used his own cartridges and loaded the gun himself; no other agency was involved. In manslaughter arising from an unlawful and dangerous act, the accused’s state of mind was relevant only to establish (a) that the act was committed intentionally; and (b) that it was an unlawful act (DPP v Newbury (1977) 62 Cr App R 291). Once (a) and (b) were established, the question of whether the act was dangerous was to be judged not by the appellant’s appreciation but by that of the sober reasonable man, and it was impossible to impute into his appreciation the mistaken belief that what he was doing was not dangerous because he thought he had a blank cartridge in the chamber. At that stage, his intention, foresight or knowledge was irrelevant. Does the dangerous criminal act have to be directed at the victim?
ABSTRACT