R v Dawson (1985)

I'm studying unlawful act manslaughter right now and am a bit confused about Dawson. Is the main principle it highlights that:
- the risk of harm refers to physical harm so the defendant's weren't guilty of manslaguther becuase causing him fear through the attempted robbery wasn't a 'dangerous act'
OR
-the reasonable man is assumed to have the same knowledge as the defendant so they weren't guilty becuase they weren't aware of the victim's heart condition?

also, if the first point is correct, isn't causing someone fear assault which is a dangerous act?

Reply 1

desmondmac

1

8 As!!!!!!!!!!!!

Reply 2

Lewisy-boy

11

Lol what a constructive answer to the question.

In terms of the question is this the one where the 45 year old bank manager or something died? I think they distinguished a case involving an old bloke because in that case it was foreseeable he might die, and so threatening and scaring him was "dangerous", but not so in the case of the bank manager. I THINK. My memory of this area is not quite so good. I don't think they drew the line at physical, I think it was to do with the fact that a mano this age you wouldn't suspect of susceptible to heart attack.

Reply 3

thats_my_poison

OP

1

close but not quite lol.

it's the one where the defendants robbed a petrol station and the attendant died of a heart attack because he had a severe heart condition.

what im querying is whether the main principle of this fact is that causing him fear through the attempted robbery wasn't a dangerous act, or they weren't aware of his heart condition so the reasonable man test fails

Reply 4

Lewisy-boy

11

thin skull rule leads me to believe that the latter one can't be right, so I am tempted to say the former... but somehow it totally doesn't ring a bell.

Reply 5

K Abraham

1

alison_141288

I'm studying unlawful act manslaughter right now and am a bit confused about Dawson. Is the main principle it highlights that:
- the risk of harm refers to physical harm so the defendant's weren't guilty of manslaguther becuase causing him fear through the attempted robbery wasn't a 'dangerous act'
OR
-the reasonable man is assumed to have the same knowledge as the defendant so they weren't guilty becuase they weren't aware of the victim's heart condition?

also, if the first point is correct, isn't causing someone fear assault which is a dangerous act?

Hello Alison with 8 A grades at A level. Dawson is fairly straightforward case dear. Physical harm can also mean psychological harm. Therefore any immediate psychological trauma inflicted on the victim which results in an adverse effect, in this case a heart attack, constitutes a dangerous act.

Reply 6

thats_my_poison

OP

1

SSU Ambassador

Hello Alison with 8 A grades at A level. Dawson is fairly straightforward case dear. Physical harm can also mean psychological harm. Therefore any immediate psychological trauma inflicted on the victim which results in an adverse effect, in this case a heart attack, constitutes a dangerous act.

hmm...not according to my textbook. it says "the risk of harm refers to physical harm. Something which causes fear and apprehension is not sufficient, even if it causes the victim to have a heart attack. Causing him fear through the attempted robbery was not a 'dangerous act'"

Reply 7

brown

4

Hello Alison with 8 A grades at A level. Dawson is fairly straightforward case dear. Physical harm can also mean psychological harm. Therefore any immediate psychological trauma inflicted on the victim which results in an adverse effect, in this case a heart attack, constitutes a dangerous act.

Dawson is not a 'fairly straightforward case' actually. You are right alison. The case of Dawson concerned the 'dangerous' aspect of unlawful act manslaughter. The main point decided in the case was that 'the jury must be directed to consider if physical harm has been cuased to the victim as opposed to merely emotional harm.' 'Fear' and 'apprehension' are not sufficient to count as physical harm, even if this lead to the victim's heart attack.

In the case of Dawson, the court turned to the case of Church 1966 for guidance and relied upon the test: What knowledge would have been gained by a sober and reasonable person had he/she been present at the scene of the crime and watched the unlawful act being performed? That is, would anything at the scene of the crime been perceived as 'dangerous'? In trying to answer these questions, the jury must assume that the 'reasonable person' could only know the facts and circumstances that the defendants knew. That is, the 'reasonable person' must be assumed to have the same knowledge about the situation as was available to the persons robbing the petrol station. In Dawson, it was held that there was no evidence to suggest the defendants knew their victim had a bad heart; therefore the reasonable person could not have known this either. The conviction for UAM was quashed. although the conviction for armed robbery was not.

Hope that's helped :smile: