JM & Anor, R v

JM & Anor, R v

The trial judge erred by requiring the prosecution to prove that a reasonable and sober person would foresee the specific type of harm that caused the victim's death; the correct test is whether the unlawful act was dangerous in the sense that it posed a risk of some harm, not necessarily the precise harm that occurred.

Parties
Appellant: R; Respondent: JM; Respondent: SM
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 November 2012
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Pre Trial Ruling
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Involuntary Manslaughter, Unlawful Act Manslaughter, Dangerousness Test, Causation
Criminal Law Involuntary Manslaughter Unlawful Act Manslaughter Dangerousness Test Causation

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R

Appellant

JM

Respondent

SM

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Pre Trial Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in ruling that the jury could not convict the respondents of manslaughter based on the prosecution case
  2. 2 Whether the 'dangerousness' requirement for unlawful act manslaughter includes foresight of the specific type of harm that occurred

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge erred by requiring the prosecution to prove that a reasonable and sober person would foresee the specific type of harm that caused the victim's death; the correct test is whether the unlawful act was dangerous in the sense that it posed a risk of some harm, not necessarily the precise harm that occurred.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • The prosecution appeal is allowed; the manslaughter charge may proceed to trial.