Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-xm8r8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-13T20:06:21.315Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Involuntary manslaughter in Commonwealth Law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

G L Peiris
G L Peiris*
Affiliation:
University of Colombo, Sri Lanka
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

It has been aptly observed that ‘Of all crimes manslaughter appears to afford most difficulties of definition’. More recently, the Court of Criminal Appeal in England has made the comment: ‘There has never been a complete and satisfactory definition of manslaughter.’

The complexity of definition is associated with a peculiar feature of manslaughter, in that the essential mental requisite consists of the accused's state of mind in relation to his physical act rather than to a particular consequence of the actus reus. The crime of manslaughter postulates mew Tea only in the special sense of intention to commit the act which brings about the consequence of death, even though this consequence may not have been desired or even foreseen by the accused. Thus, the intention to cause death or serious injury is not necessarily a requirement of liability for manslaughter.

Type
Research Article
Information
Legal Studies , Volume 5 , Issue 1 , March 1985 , pp. 21 - 55
Copyright
Copyright © Society of Legal Scholars 1985

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Andrews v DPP [1937] AC 576 at 581, per Lord Atkin (HL).

2. R v Church [1966] 1 QB 59 at 70, per Edmund Davies J, (CCA).

3. R v Hyam [1975] AC 55 at 86, per Lord Diplock, HL; DPP v Morgan [1976] AC 182 at 216, per Lord Simon of Glaisdale (HL); R v O'Driscoll (1977) 65 Cr App R 50 at 55, per Waller LJ.

4. R v Mitchell [1983 1 2 WLR 938 at 940, per Staughton J (CA).

5. R v Holzer [1968] VR 481 at 482, per Smith J (SC of Vict).

6. Cf Williams, G. L. Criminal Law: The General Part (2nd edn, 1961), p 111 Google Scholar.

7. R v Alec (1973) 15 CCC (2d) 164 at 168, per Maclean JA (CA of BC).

8. DPP v Newbury [1977] AC 590 (HL).

9. Ibid.

10. R v Lipman [1970] 1 QB 152 (CA).

11. DPP v Beard [1920] AC 479 at 499, per Lord Birkenhead LC; cf Bratty v A-G for Northern Ireland [1963] AC 386 at 410, per Lord Denning; A-G for Northern Ireland v Gallagher [1963] AC 349 at 381, per Lord Denning.

12. R v Lamb [1967] 2 QB 981 at 988, where the observation by the trial judge is referred to and commented on critically by the Court of Appeal.

13. See the case cited at n 1, supra.

14. See the case cited at n 8, supra.

15. For an example, see R v Mitchell, n 4, supra.

16. Crimes Act, 1900 (NSW), s 24.

17. R v Creamer [1966] 1 QB 72 at 82, per Lord Parker CJ (CCA); R v Brandolini [1948] 2 WWR 1116(SC of BC);R v Roche(1950) 1 DLR 44 (CA of NS).

18. R v Van Butchell (1829) 3 Car & P 629 at 634, quoting Hale Pleas of the Crown, vol 1, p429.

19. R v Rau [1972] Tas SR 59 at 65–66, per Burbury C.J (CCA).

20. Williams, G. L. op cit n 6 supra, p 111 Google Scholar.

21. CfP. Brett ‘Manslaughter and the Motorist’ (1953) 27 ALJ 89 at 93.

22. Seago, P. Criminal Law (1981), p 25 Google Scholar.

23. Criminal Code of Nigeria, 1916, s 317.

24. R v Koning 1953 (3) SA 220 at 231 (TPD).

25. R u Packard (1841) Car & M 236 at 243, per Parke B.

26. Kelb U R (1923) 32 CLR 509 (HCA).

27. DPP v Beard [1920] AC 479 at 499, per Lord Birkenhead LC; cf R v Buck and Buck (1960) 44 Cr App R 213 at 219–220, per Edmund Davies J.

48. Crimes Act No 43 of 1961 (NZ), s 171.

29. Criminal Code 1953–1954, c 51 (Canada), s 217.

30. Criminal Law Act 1967 (UK), s 6(2).

31. R u Larkin [1943] 1 All ER 217 at 219, per Humphreys J.

32. Fitzgerald, P. J. Criminal Law and Punishment (1962), p 64 Google Scholar.

33. R v Burney [1958] NZLR 745 at 752, per North J (CA).

34. Smith, J. C. and Hogan, B. Criminal Law: Cases and Materials (1980), p 364 Google Scholar.

35. See, for example, the Canadian Criminal Code, n 29 supra, ss 203, 204, 205 (5)(b), 233 (1) and 233 (4).

36. See the Model Penal Code, s 210.

37. Penal Code 1860 (India), s 304A.

38. Criminal Code 1916 (Nigeria), s 317.

39. Callaghan U R (1953) 87 CLR 115 at 120 (HCA).

40. Cf R v Stephenson [1976] VR 376 (SC); for criticism of the prevailing law, see C. Howard Australian Criminal Law (4th edn, 1982), p 103–104.

41. R v Davis [1955] Tas SR 52 (SC); R v Barnard [1956] Tas SR 19 (SC).

42. Crimes Act (NSW), s 52A (5).

43. Crimes Act (Vict), s 318 (2) (b).

44. Criminal Law Consolidation Act (SA), s 14A.

45. Crimes Act (NSW), s 52A which is in force in the ACT because of the Crimes (Amendment) Ordinance, 1979 (ACT).

46. Cf Mewett, A. W. and Manning, W. Canadian Criminal Law (1978), p 466 Google Scholar.

47. R v Gylee (1907) 1 Cr App R 242.

48. R v Meiring 1927 AD 41 at 46, per Innes CJ.

49. R v Van Wijk (1901) 16 EDC 29; R v Clark (1924) 45 NLR 343.

50. D 9. 2. 44 pr.

51. Van de Linden Institutes 2. 5. 7.

52. But see Matthaeus de Criminibus 4. 8. 5. 3. 3.

53. See n 51, supra.

54. But see, for a somewhat different approach, R u Stubbs (1913) 8 Cr App R 238.

55. R v Bonnyman (1942) 28 Cr App R 131 at 134, per Caldecote LCJ. See also R v Noakes (1866) 4 F & F 920; R v Salmon (1880) 6 QBD 79; R v Doherty (1887) 16 Cox 306.

56. Stephen, J. F. A Digest of the Criminal Law (4th edn, 1887), pp 165–167 Google Scholar, illustr. 6.

57. Cf R v Ferguson (1830) 1 Lew 182; R v Spilling (1838) 2 M & Rob 107.

58. Woo Sing V R [1954] MLJ 200 (HC of Singapore).

59. Public Prosecutor v Mills [1971] I MLJ 4 (CA of Sarawak, North Borneo and Brunei).

60. Chung Kum Moey v Public Prosecutor [1967] 1 MLJ 205 (PC).

61. Tika Ram V R AIR 1950 All 300 at 301 (HC).

62. R v Nwankwo 1956 WRNLR 105 (SC); R v Ozegbe 1957 WRNLR 152 (SC).

63. R v Newell (1927) 27 SR (NSW) 274 (SC); R v Gunter (1921) 21 SR (NSW) 282 (SC);R v Wood [1957] SR (NSW) 638 (SC).

64. McCarthy V R (1921) 62 SCR 40 (SC); R v Baker [1929] SCR 354 (SC).

65. Turner, J. W. C. Modem Approach to Criminal Law (1945), p 211 Google Scholar.

66. Dean, P. ‘Manslaughter and Dangerous Driving’ (1937) 53 LQR 380 at p 386 Google Scholar.

67. For an example, see R u Gould (1850) 14 JP 657.

68. R u Jones (1870) 22 LT 217; R v Salmon (1880) 6 QBD 79.

69. Brierly V Want [1960] NZLR 1088 at 1094 (CA).

70. R v Dawe (1911) 30 NZLR 673 at 687, per Cooper J (CA); R v Storey [1931] NZLR 417 at 435, per Myers CJ (CA). But see R v Burney [1958] NZLR 745 at 752, per North J (CA).

71. R v Greisman (1926) 46 CCC 172 at 178, per Middleton JA (SC, AD of Ont); cf R v Titchner [1961] OR 606 at 609–610 per Morden JA (CA of Ont).

72. Ibid.

73. R v Savard (1957) 119 CCC 92 at 98, per Ford CJA (SC, AD of Alberta).

74. Evgenion V R (1964) 37 ALJR 508 at 513, per Owen J (HCA).

75. R v Watson [1960] Qd R 332 at 336, per Mack J (CCA); R v Horvath [1972] VR 533 at 539, per Winnake CJ(SC).

76. R v Delisle (1896) 5 CCC 210 at 228, per Tascherau J (Que QB); R v Savoie (1956) 117 CCC 327 at 334, per Bridges J (SC, AD of NB).

77. R v Hilbom [1946] OR 552 (CA).

78. Wittig V R (1919) 27 CLR 158 (HCA).

79. R v Miller (1944) 82 CCC 314 at 316, per Frontenac County Ct Judges' Crim Ct (Ont).

80. See the case cited at n 71, supra.

81. Moore V R [1926] SASR 52 at 71–72, per Poole J (SC).

82. Mamole-Kulang of Tamagot v R (1964) III CLR 62 at 79, per Windeyer J (HCA). But see, for disapproval of this terminology, R v Young [1969] Qd R 417 at 444, per Lucas J (CCA).

83. Binus V R [1968] 1 CCC 227 at 233, per Judson J (SCC).

84. R v Watson (1936) 50 BCR 531 (SC of BC).

85. R v Longbottam (1849) 3 Cox CC 439, per Rolfe B.

86. R v Lucas [1973] VR 693 at 701, per Newton J and Norris AJ (SC).

87. Tinline v White Cross Insurance Association Ltd. [1921] 3 KB 327 at 330, per Bailhache J.

88. R v Large [1939] 1 All ER 753 (CCA).

89. R v Egan (1897) 23 VLR 159 at 160, per Madden CJ (SC).

90. Callaghan V R (1952) 87 CLR 115 (HCA); cf Kelly v R (1923) 32 CLR 509 (HCA).

91. R v Bateman (1925) 19 Cr App R 8 at 11–12, per Lord Hewart CJ. For criticism, see G. L. Williams A Textbook of Criminal Law (1978), p 224.

92. Andrews V DPP [1937] AC 576 at 583; cf, for Indian Law, Chamman Lal v State AIR [1954) All 186 at 187.

93. R v Terry [1955] VLR 114 at 116, per Sholl J (SC).

94. R v Terry n 93, supra.

95. R v Gunter (1921) 21 SR (NSW) 282 at 286, per Cullen CJ (SC).

96. R v Lubienski (1893) 14 LR (NSW) 55 at 62–63, per Windeyer J (SC).

97. R v Wood [1957] SR (NSW) 638 at 639, per Street CJ (SC).

98. People v Dunleavy [1948] IR 96 (CCA).

99. Williams, G. L. op cit n 6 supra, p 112 Google Scholar; cf G. L. Williams ‘Constructive Manslaughter’ [1957] Crim LR 293 at 301.

100. State v Bernadus 1965 (3) SA 287 at 307, per Holmes JA (AD).

101. State v Bernadus n 100 supra, at p 307; cf R v de Bruyn 1953 (4) SA 206 at 213 (SWA).

102. Ajmer Singh v Stale AIR 1955 Punj 13; cf Behari v State AIR 1953 All 203 at 205.

103. Mimi Wong v Public Prosecutor [1972) 2 MLJ 75 (CCA).

104. R v Mendis (1952) 54 NLR 177 (SC); R v Somapala (1969) 72 NLR 121 (SC).

105. Nydam V R [1977] VR 430 (SC).

106. A. W. Mewett and W. Manning, n 46 supra, p 103.

107. See nn 42–45. supra.

108. Callaghan V R (1952) 87 CLR 115 at 124 (HCA).

109. R v Scarth [1945] St RQd 38 (SC).

110. See the case cited at n 108, supra.

111. See the case cited at n 74, supra.

112. American Automobile Insurance Go v Dickson [1943] SCR 143 at 149, per Tascherau J (SCC).

113. Peda V R [1969] SCR 905 at 912, per Carterright CJ (SCC).

114. La Fonciere Compagnic d'Assurance dc France v Perras and Mongeau [1943] SCR 165 at 174 (SCC).

115. Cheow Keok v Public Prosecutor [1940] MLJ 103 (CA).

116. R v Scarth [1945] St RQd 38 at 46, per Macrossan SPJ (CCA).

117. Ru Storey [1931] NZLR 417 at 435, per Myers CJ (CA).

118. R v Rau [1972] Tas SR 59 at 61, per Burbury CJ (CCA).

119. See the case cited at n 98, supra.

120. Cf R v Newell (1927) 27 SR (NSW) 274 at 276, per Street CJ (SC).

121. R v Stringer [1933] 1 KB 704 (CCA).

124. Road Traffic Act 1930 (UK), s 11.

123. Wedderburn v Mann [1963] WAR 151 (SC).

124. R v Ashman [1957] VR 364 (SC).

125. R v Burnside [1962] VR 96 (SC).

126. R v Barnard [1956] Tas SR 19 (SC).

127. R v Davis [1955] Tas SR 52 (SC).

128. For a similar view of Malaysian law, see William Tan Cheng Eng v Public Prosecutor [1970] 2 MLJ 244 (CCA).

129. R v Titchncr [1961] OR 606 (CA).

130. R v Constable (1936) 3 DLR 391 (SC, AD of Alberta); Loiselle v R (1953) 109 CCC 31 at 38 (Que QB).

131. O'Grady v Sparling [1960] SCR 804(SCC), Mann v R [1966] SCE 238 (SCC); R v Binus [1968] 1 CCC 227 (SCC); Peda v R [1969] SCR 905 (SCC).

132. R v Fortin (1957) 121 CCC 345 (SC, AD of NB).

133. O'Grady v Sparling [1960] SCR 804 at 811, per Judson J (SCC).

134. Re Beresford (1952) 36 Cr App R 1. This approach has not, however, been typical of English law: see R v Nuneaton JJ, ex p Parker [1954] 1 WLR 1318.

135. Howard, C. Australian Criminal Law (4th edn, 1982), p 100 Google Scholar.

136. R v Wilson (1938) 70 CCC 153 (Kent County Ct, Ont).

137. R v Cuto [1976] 1 WLR 110.

138. R v Lamb [1967] 2 QB 981.

139. See, for example, Moore v R [1926] SASR 52 at 71–72, per Poole J (SC).

140. R v Titchner [1961] OR 606 at 609–610, per Morden JA (CA).

141. R v Stone and Dobinson [1977] 1 QB 354.

142. See the case cited at n 137, supra.

143. See the case cited at n 138, supra; cf R v Pike [1961] Crim LR 114; R v Lowe [1973] QB 702.

144. See the commentary on R v Cashmore [1959] Crim LR 850.

145. See I. H. Dennis ‘Manslaughter by Omission’ [1980] Current Legal Problems 255 at 264.

146. R v Binus [1966] 4 CCC 193 at 202–203, per Laskin JA (Ont. CA).

147. Ibid.

148. A. Hooper ‘Dangerous Driving: What is Advertent Negligence?’ (1967–1968) 10 Crim LQ 403 at 406.

149. Nydam V R [1977] VR 430 at 445 (SC).

150. R v Fortin (1957) 121 CCC 345 at 351, per Ritchie JA (SC, AD of NB).

151. R v Baker [1929] SCR 354 (SCC); Arthurs v R [1974] SCR 287 (SCC).

154. Arthurs V R cited above n 151, at p 292, per Ritchie J.

153. Arthurs V R n 152 supra, at p 306–307, per Laskin J.

154. R v Savoie (1956) 117 CCC 327 at 334, per Bridges J (SC, AD of NB).

155. See the case cited at n 149, supra.

156. R v Rigmaidon (1833) 168 ER 1004.

157. R v Fortin (1957) 121 CCC 345 at 351, per Ritchie JA (SC, AD of NB).

158. R v Rogers [1968] 4 CCC 278 at 300, per Nemetz JA (CA of BC).

159. MaCarthy V R [1921] SCR 40 (SCC); Leblanc v R [1977] 1 SCR 339 at 355, per de Grandpre J (SCC).

160. R v Torrie [1967] 3 CCC 303 at 307, per Evans JA (Ont CA).

161. R v Tennant and Naccarato (1975) 7 OR (2d) 687 (Ont CA).

162. Ibid; cf for Scots law, Kennedy v HM Advocate [1944] JC 171.

163. Turner, J. W. C. Modem Approach to Criminal Law (1945) at p 229 Google Scholar; cf Jacobs, F. G. Criminal Responsibility (1971) at p 21 Google Scholar.

164. R v Walker (1824) 1 C & P 320; R v Knight (1828) 1 Lew 168.

165. R v Jones (1874) 12 Cox 628; R v Kwaku Mensah [1946] AC 83 at 91 (PC).

166. R v Mucleod (1874) 12 Cos 534; R v Eurdee (1916) 12 Cr App R 153.

167. R v Pittwood (1902) 19 TLR 37.

168. R v Coventry (1938) 59 CLR 633 at 639–640 (HCA).

169. R v Senior [1899] 1 QB 283.

170. R v Russell 1933 VLR 59 (SC); R v Clarke and Wilton [1959] VR 645 (SC).

171. R v Rogers [1968] 4 CCC 278 (CA of BC).

172. R v Baker [1929] SCR 354 at 358 (SC); Arthurs v R [1974] SCR 287 at 292 (SCC).

173. State v Mahlalela 1966 (1) SA 226 at 229 (AD); State v Fernandez 1966 (2) SA 259 at 264 (AD).

174. State v Van Deventer 1963 (2) SA 475 at 483 (AD); Cf State v Van As 1967 (4) SA 594 at 599 (AD).

175. Akerele V R [1943] AC 255 at 264 (PC).

176. Glasgow Corporation v Muir [1943] AC 448 at 457, per Lord Macmillan (HC).

177. Jones NO v SANTAMB pk 1965 (2) SA 542 at 551, per Williamson JA (AD).

178. Ibid.

179. State v Van der Mescht 1962 (1) SA 521 (AD).

180. Bellstedt V SAR 1936 CPD 399 at 409.

181. Cf Gardiner, F. G. and Lansdown, C. W. H. South African Criminal Low and Procedure (6th edn, 1956), p 141 Google Scholar.

184. R v Stone and Dobinson [1977] 1 QB 354 (CA).

183. P. Seago Criminal Low (1981), p 27.

184. Cf Williams, G. L. Criminal Law: The General Part (2nd edn, 1961), p 122 Google Scholar.

185. Ibid at p 110–111.

186. R v Carr (1937) 68 CCC 343 at 348, per Rowell CJO (Ont CA) Wedderburn v Mann [1963] WAR 151 at 154, per Commissioner Boylson (SC of WA); Mann v R [1966] SCR 238 at 251, per Ritchie J (SCC).

187. Cf Mewett, A. W. and Manning, M. Canadian Criminal Law (1978), p 110 Google Scholar.

188. Andrew V DPP [1937] AC at 582, per Lord Atkin (HL).

189. Pedu V R [1969] SCR 905 at 919, per Pigeon J (SCC).

190. O'Grady v Sparling [1960] SCR 804 at 809, per Judson J (SCC).

191. R v Stone and Dobinson [1977] 1 QB 354 at 363, per Geoffrey Lane LJ (CA).

192. R v Cato [1976] 1 WLR 110 at 119, per Lord Widgery CJ (CA).

193. R v Rau [1972] Tas SR 59 at 66, per Burbury CJ (CCA).

194. Arthurs V R [1974] SCR 287 (SCC).

195. Cf PJT O'Hearn ‘Criminal Negligence: An Analysis in Depth’ (1964–1965) 7 Crim LQ 27 at 541; cf P. Burns ‘An Aspect of Criminal Negligence’ (1970) 48 Can BR 47 at 55.

196. R v Spencer (1867) 10 Cox CC 525; R v Nicholls (1874) 13 Cox CC 75; R v Handley (1874) 13 Cox CC 79; R v Lode [1973] QB 702.

197. R v Gunter (1921) 21 SR (NSW) 282 (SC); Pemble v R (1971) 45 ALJR 333 (HCA); R v Sergi [1974] VR 1 (SC).

198. R v Smith [1979] Crim LR 251.

199. Ibid.

200. R v Markus (1864) 4 F & F 356; cf the last case cited at n 196, supra.

201. Canadian Criminal Code, 1955 1954, c 51, s 202(1)(b).

202. See the work cited at n 187 supra, at p 103.

203. Leblanc V R [1977] 1 SCR 339 (SCC).

204. State v Van de Mescht 1962 (1) SA 521 (AD).

205. R v John 1969 (2) SA 560 at 570.

206. Johnson V R (1966) 10 WIR 402 at 416, per Wooding CJ.

207. Cf P. Weiler ‘The Supreme Court of Canada and the Doctrines of Mms Red (1971) 49 Can BR 280 at 327.

208. R v Venna [1975] 3 All ER 788 at 794, per James LJ.

209. DPP v Morgan [1976) AC 182 confirmed by the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976, s 1.

210. MFI Warehouses Ltd v Nattrass [1973] 1 All Er 762 at 767, per Lord Widgery CJ.

211. R v Briggs [1977] 1 All ER 475 at 477–478; cf R v Stephenson [1979] 2 All ER 1198.

212. R v Parker [1977] 2 All ER 37 at 40.

213. Cf R. A. Duff, ‘Recklessness’ [1980] Crim LR 282.

214. R v Mowatt [1968] 1 QB 421.

215. R v Cunningham [1957] 2 All ER 412.

216. R v Caldwell [1981] 1 All ER 961; R v Lawrence [1981] 1 All ER 974; R v Seymour [1983]3 WLR 349.

217. See, in particular, R v Lawrence, n 216, supra.

218. Cf R v Madigan [1982] Crim LR 692.

219. For criticism see G. L. Williams ‘Recklessness Redefined’ (1981] CLJ 252 at 261.

220. R v Scymour [1983] 3 WLR 349 at 358, per Lord Roskill.

221. R v Pigg [1982] 1 WLR 762 at 770–772, per Lord Lane CJ.

224. See, for example, Road Traffic Act 1956, s 8.

223. R v Scymour, n 220 supra, at p 354.

224. Road Traffic Act 1972, s 1(1); see also Criminal Law Act 1977, s 50.

225. R v Governor of Holloway Prison, exp Jennings [1983] 1 AC 624; R v Seymour, n 220 supra, at p 356, per Lord Roskill.

226. Criminal Damage Act 1971, s 1(1).

227. Elliott v C [1983] I WLR 939.

228. Ibid.

229. Ibid at p 947, per Robert Goff LJ.

230. See the cases cited at n 216 supra.

231. R v Miller [1983] 2 WLR 539 at 544, per Lord Diplock.

232. R v Caldwell, n 216 supra, at p 966; R v Lawrence, n 216 supra, at p 982.

233. R v Lane [1982] AC 510 at 527.

234. Elliott V C, n 227 supra, at p 946, per Glidewell J.

235. Cf R v Thomas (1983) 77 Cr App R 65; R v Kimber [1983] 3 All ER 316.

236. R v Caldwell, n 216 supra, at p 966.

237. R v Seymour, n 220 supra, at p 358.

238. Ibid.

239. See Hall, J. General Principles of Criminal Law (2nd edn, 1960), p 544 Google Scholar.

240. Ruse v Read [1949] 1 KB 373; R v Burns (1974) 58 Cr App R 364.

241. DPP V Majewski [1977] AC 443 at 482. 444. Ibid, per Lord Salmon.

243. Bolton V Crawley [1972] Crim LR 222.

244. Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1969] 1 QB 439 at 444, per James J.

245. Aristotle Ethics, book 3, ch 5, 113b, 31.

246. R v Sheehan and Moore (1975) 60 Cr App R 308; DPP u Majewski, n 241, supra.

247. See the cases cited at n 216, supra.

248. See Williams, G. L. op cit n 219 supra, at p 260 Google Scholar.

249. See the draft bill of the Law Commission accompanying Law Com paper No 89 of 1978, s 4.

250. Para II of Cmnd 7844 presented to Parliament in 1980.

251. See Griew, E. ‘Consistency, Communication and Codification — Reflections on Two Mens Rea Words' in Reshaping the Criminal Law (ed Glazebrook, P. R., 1978) 57 at p 63 Google Scholar; cf C. Wells, ‘Perfectly Simple English Manslaughter’ (1976) 39 MLR 474.

252. Cmnd 6244 of 1975.

253. See Broadhurst v R [1964] AC 441.

254. Cf R v Seymour [1983] Crim LR 260.

255. R v Caldwell n 216, supra.

256. For a vigorous denial of this contention, see G. L. Williams Criminal Law: The General Part (2nd edn, 1961), pp 110–111.

257. Kenny, C. S. Outlines of Criminal LAW (19th edn, 1966, by Turner, J. W. C.), p 191 Google Scholar.

258. R v Instan [1893] 1 QB 450.

259. R v Clarke and Wilton [1959] VR 645 (SC); cf R v Duffy (1980) 6 VLR (L) 430 at 432, per Stawell CJ (SC).

260. R v Cowan [1955] VLR 18 (SC).

261. R v Lowe (1950) 3C & K 123.

262. C. Howard op cit, p 105.

263. R v Davis [1955] Tas SR 52 at 55–56, per Crisp J (SC).

264. Crimes Act, No 43 of 1961 (NZ), s 160 (2)(b).

265. Criminal Code 1953–1954, c 51 (Canada), s 202 (1)(b).

266. See n 264, supra.

267. See n 265, supra.

268. R v Downes (1875) 1 QBD 25; R v Cook (1898) 62 JP 712.

269. R v Lowe [1973] QB 702 at 708, per Phillimore LJ (CA).

270. R v Lowe n 269 supra, at p 709.

271. R v Egan (1897) 23 VLR 159 (SC); but see R v Young [1969] Qd R 417 (SC).

272. R v Hughes (1857) 1 Dears & B 248; R v Benge (1865) 4 F 504.

273. Ibid.

274. R v Forgeron (1958) 121 CCC 310 at 313, per Ilsley CJNS (SC of NS).

275. Smith, J. C. and Hogan, B. Criminal Law (4th edn, 1978), p 314 Google ScholarPubMed, ad fin.

276. Cf H. A. Snelling, ‘Manslaughter by Negligent Act or Omission’ (1958) 31 ALJ 630 at 637.

277. R. J. Buxton ‘By Any Unlawful Act’ (1966) 82 LQR 174 at 181–182.

278. Hale Pleas of the Crown (1778) vol 1, p 466; Coke Institutes III (1797) pp 54–56; East Pleas of the Crown (1803) vol 1, p 218, 257; Hawkins Pleas of the Crown (8th edn, 1824), vol 1, p 89; Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England (21st edn, 1844), vol 4, p 192.

279. R v Phillips (1971) 45 ALJR 467 at 479–480, per Windeyer J (HCA).

280. R v Conner (1835) 173 ER 194; R v Marriott (1838) 173 ER 559; R v Bruce (1847) 2 Cox CC 262; R v Wesley (1859) 175 ER 838.

281. Cf Kenny, C. S. Outlines of Criminal Law (13th edn, 1929), p 135 Google Scholar.

282. This change was effected by the Criminal Law Act 1967.

283. R v Franklin (1883) 15 Cox CC 163, per Field J.

284. These reflections were endorsed unreservedly by the English Criminal Law Commissioners of 1845.

285. The Commissioners on Criminal Law, in their 4th Report submitted in 1839, Cmnd 168, were critical or the common Law doctrine applied in authorities like Fenton's case (1830) 1 Lew CC 179 and R v Sullivan (1836) 7 C & P 641.

286. Burchell, E. M. ‘Versari in Re Illicita and Criminal Negligence’ (1962) 79 SALJ 245 at p 246 Google Scholar.

287. R v Hall (1961) 45 Cr App R 366 (CCA).

288. Criminal Code 1953–1954, c 51 (Canada), s 205 (5) (a).

289. Crimes Act No 43 of 1961 (NZ) s 160 (2) (a).

290. See the Tasmanian Criminal Code, s 156 (2) (c).

291. Tamagot V R (1964) 111 CLR 62 (HCA).

292. R v Martyr 1962 Qd R 398 (SC); cf E. M. Bingham ‘Homicide by an unlawful Act’ (1958–1963) I University of Tasmania Law Review 670.

293. Carpzovius Lijfstraffelijke Misdaden c 27, s 5; cf Van der Linden, Inst 2. 5. 7.

294. State v Bernardus 1965 (3) SA 287 (AD).

295. Prior to the decision of the Appellate Division cited at n 251, supra, the versari doctrine had been applied in South Africa: see R v Wallendof 1920 AD 383; R v Matsepe 1931 AD 150; R v Masiya 1961 (1) SA218 (W).

296. R. v Holzer [1968] VR 481 at 482, per Smith J (SC); R v Longley [1962] VR 137 at 148 (SC); Nydam v R [1977] VR 430 at p 440.

297. R v Church [1966] 1 QB 59 at 70, per Edmund Davies J (CCA); cf R v Buck and Buck (1960) 44 Cr App R 213. (North Eastern Circuit).

298. See the cases cited at n 296, supra.

299. Cf Howard, C. op cit, p 114–115Google Scholar.

300. R v Mitchell [1983] 2 WLR 938 at p 943, per Stanghton J (CA).

301. R v Mitchell n 300 supra, at p 942.

302. R v Phillips (1971) 45 ALJR 467 at p 479–480, per Windmeyer J (HCA).

303. R v Rau [1972] Tas SR 59 72, per Nettlefold J (SC).

304. R v Franklin (1883) 15 Cox CC 163.

305. R v Barrett (1846) 175 ER 142.

306. R v Holzer [1968] VR 481 at 482, per Smith J (SC).

307. R v Lowson (1938) 70 CCC 384 at 388, per Adamson J. (KB of Man); cf R v D'Angelo (1927) 48 CCC 127 at 136–137, per Ferguson JA (Ont CA).

308. Andrews V DPP [1937] AC 576 at 584.

309. R v Downes (1875) 1 QBD 25; R v Senior [1899] 1 QB 283.

310. See the case cited at n 303, supra.

311. R v Church [1966] 1 QB 59 at 70 (CCA).

312. R v Tunur [1962] VR 30 at 34 (SC).

313. Pemble V R (1971)45 ALJR 333 at 341 (HCA).

314. R v Phillips (1971) 45 ALJR 467 at 469 (HCA); cf R v McCallum [1969] Tas SR 73 (SC).

315. R v Towers (1874) 12 Cox CC 530; R v Hayward (1908) 21 Cox CC 692; R v Alabaster (1912) 47 LJ Newsp 397.

316. R R Larkin [1943] 1 All ER 217 at 219, per Humphreys J; Gray v Ban [1971] 2 All ER 949 at 960, per Salmon LJ.

317. R v Creamer [1966] 1 QB 72.

318. R v Buck and Buck (1960) 44 Cr App R 213.

319. R v Bottomley (1903) 115 LT 88; R v Lumley (1912) 76 JP 208; R v Newton and Stungo [1958] Crim LR 469.

320. R v Salika [1973] VR 272 (SC) cf R v Brown and Brian [1949] VLR 177 (SC).

341. R v Dalby [1982] 1 WLR 425.

324. Ibid; see D. Cowley ‘Constructive Manslaughter — New Limits’ (1982) 46 J Cr L 188.

323. R v Murton (1862) 3 F & F 492 at 501, per Byles J.

324. R v Mitchell [1983] 2 WLR 938.

325. At p 943.

326. R v Towers (1874) 12 Cox CC 530.

327. R v Larkin, n 316, supra.

328. R v Reid (1975) 62 Cr App R 109 at 112, per Lawton LJ.

329. R v Simpson (1959) 76 WN (NSW) 589 at 592 (CCA).

330. R v Edmonds [1963] I All ER 828 at 831, per Winn J (CCA); cf Woodward v Koessler [1958] 3 All ER 557 (Div Ct).

331. See the case cited at n 321, supra.

332. See the case cited at n 323, supra.

333. Tse Sang v R [1957] HKLR 132 at 146, per Hogan CJ (SC, appell j) commenting on the direction of the trial judge.

334. See the case cited at n 321, supra.

335. See, in particular, dicta of Lord Denning in Gray v Barr [1971] 2 QB 554; cf R v Boswell [1973] Crim LR 307; R v Hosken [1974] Crim LR 48.

336. DPP V Newbury [1976] 2 All ER 365.

337. R v Lipman [1970] 1 QB 152 at 58, per Widgery LJ.

338. R v Church [1966] 1 QB 59 at 70; cf R v Mackie [1973] Crim LR 54.

339. R v Longley [1962] VR 137 at 142.

340. R v Phillips (1971) 45 ALJR 467 at 479–480 where the High Court of Australia interpreted s 156(2)(c) of the Tasmanian Criminal Code.

341. R v Parmenter [1956] VLR 312 at 314–315.

342. R v Holzer [1968] VR 481 at 482.

343. Ibid.

344. R v Longley [1962] VR 137 at 142, per Sholl J.

345. R v Holzer [1968] VR 481 at 482, per Smith J.

346. CJD. Cowley, op cit n 322 supra, at p 190.

347. Cf D. R. Williams, ‘Unlawful Act Manslaughter’ (1975) 1 Monash University Law Review 234 at 257.

348. R v Lamb [1967] 2 QB 981 at 988, per Sachs LJ.

349. State v Lubbe 1963 (4) SA 459 at 466 (W); State v Ramgaga 1965 (4) SA 254 at 256 (0).

350. R v Stone and Dobinson 1977 1 QB 354 at 363, per Geoffrey Lane LJ.

351. Seen 352, infra.

352. R v Longley [1962] VR 137.

353. Ibid; cf R v Clarke [1959] VR 645.

354. Cf G. F. Orchard ‘Drunkenness, Drugs and Manslaughter’ [1970] Grim LR 132 at 217.

355. R v Church [1966] 1 QB 59 at 70.

356. See R v Bennett (1858) 8 Cox CC 74; cf the test proposed by Tindal CJ in R v Fenton (1830) 1 Lew 179.

357. See the commentary on R v Cashmore [1959] Crim LR 850.

358. R v Mitchell [1983] 2 WLR 938 at 942.

359. R v Mitchell, n 358 supra, at p 943.

360. R v Martyr [1962] Qd R 398 at 417, per Townley J (CCA).

361. R v Buck and Buck (1960) 44 Cr App R 213 at 219–220, per Edmund Davies J.

362. R v Howard (1913) 5 WWR 838 (SC of Man).

363. R v Reid (1975) 62 Cr App R 109 at 112, per Lawton LJ.

364. Ibid.

365. Burchell, E. M. and Hunt, P. M. A. South African Criminal Law and Procedure (1970), p 381 Google Scholar.

366. R v Smith (1869) 11 Cox CC 210.

367. Burchell, E. M. and Hunt, P. M. A. op cit n 365 supra, p 373, n 42Google Scholar.

368. Cf R v Mara 1966 (1) SA 82.

369. See n 290, supra.

370. See n 288, supra.

371. See n 289, supra.

372. R v Rau [1972] Tas SR 59 at 72, per Nettlefold J (CCA).

373. Murray V R [1962] Tas SR 170A (CCA); R v McCallum [1969] Tas SR 73 (CCA).

374. R v Phillips (1971) 45 ALJR 467 at 480, per Windeyer J (HCA).

375. See, for example, R v Cato [1976] 1 WLR 110 at 114, per Lord Widgery C.J (CA).

376. P. R. Glazebrook ‘Constructive Manslaughter and the Threshold Tort’, [1970] CLJ 21; W. T. Westling ‘Manslaugher by Unlawful Act: The Constructive Crime Which Serves No Constructive Purpose’ (1973–1976) 7 Syd LR 211.

377. See Archbold, Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice (14th edn, 1859, by Welsby, W. N.), p 527 Google Scholar.

378. A-G for Ceylon v Perera [1953] AC 200 at 205.

379. See R v Hilborn [1946] OR 552 (CA).

380. R v Sharmpal Singh [1962] 2 WLR 238, (PC).

381. R v Lipman [1970] 1 QB 152 at 159, per Widgery LJ (CA).

382. Andrews V DPP, n 1, supra.

383. R v Church [1966] 1 QB 59 at 70, per Edmund Davies J (CCA).

384. Williams, G. L. Criminal Law: The Central Part (2nd edn, 1961), p 245 Google Scholar.

385. Ibid.