The Student Room Group

Unlawful act manslaughter - thin skull rule

I'm a bit confused by two sections of my text book. One says that since Watson (1989) a defendant would be liable for physical harm occuring as a result of a victim's frailty, only where the reasonable person would be aware of this frailty. The House of Lord's said that the unlawful act (burglary, in Watson) became 'dangerous' (some risk of harm) when the mans condition would have become apparant to the reasonable man.

Later on the text book says that the usual rules of causation apply to unlawful act manslaughter. These rules include the thin skull rule, as I understand it.

Is this contradictory, or is it that it must be shown that there was a) an unlawful act b) this act was dangerous c) that it caused death and d) that the defendant had the mens rea for the unlawful act ... with Watson being relevant only to part b and thin skull applying only to c?

I appologise if this is a silly question, my brain is fried ... I can't make the sentences in the text book link up ... Thankyou for any clarification you can offer.
Reply 1
Es*
I'm a bit confused by two sections of my text book. One says that since Watson (1989) a defendant would be liable for physical harm occuring as a result of a victim's frailty, only where the reasonable person would be aware of this frailty. The House of Lord's said that the unlawful act (burglary, in Watson) became 'dangerous' (some risk of harm) when the mans condition would have become apparant to the reasonable man.

Later on the text book says that the usual rules of causation apply to unlawful act manslaughter. These rules include the thin skull rule, as I understand it.

Is this contradictory, or is it that it must be shown that there was a) an unlawful act b) this act was dangerous c) that it caused death and d) that the defendant had the mens rea for the unlawful act ... with Watson being relevant only to part b and thin skull applying only to c?


You got it.
Reply 2
redjon1
You got it.


Thankyou, was just a little confused re the frailty/thin skull thing ... seemed like oposites. I think writing it out helped cement it in my mind. Thankyou for your confirmation.
You go girl!!!!
Original post by DannyBoy1627_xX
You go girl!!!

:mad:
I'm a bit confused by two sections of my text book. One says that since Watson (1989) a defendant would be liable for physical harm occuring as a result of a victim's frailty, only where the reasonable person would be aware of this frailty. The House of Lord's said that the unlawful act (burglary, in Watson) became 'dangerous' (some risk of harm) when the mans condition would have become apparant to the reasonable man.

Later on the text book says that the usual rules of causation apply to unlawful act manslaughter. These rules include the thin skull rule, as I understand it.

Is this contradictory, or is it that it must be shown that there was a) an unlawful act b) this act was dangerous c) that it caused death and d) that the defendant had the mens rea for the unlawful act ... with Watson being relevant only to part b and thin skull applying only to c?

I appologise if this is a silly question, my brain is fried ... I can't make the sentences in the text book link up ... Thankyou for any clarification you can offer.

💃🏻💃🏻💃🏻
imho the onus would be on the burglar to carry out pre-burglary safety assessments to rule out adverse effects on the person selected for their services.
proper training of our burglars would include modules on health and safety and so forth. a lack of qualified burglars would necessitate emergency visas to be issued to highly qualified European burglars to take up the slack.
Original post by the bear
imho the onus would be on the burglar to carry out pre-burglary safety assessments to rule out adverse effects on the person selected for their services.
proper training of our burglars would include modules on health and safety and so forth. a lack of qualified burglars would necessitate emergency visas to be issued to highly qualified European burglars to take up the slack.

In fairness, this thread was started when Gordon Brown was PM - so there would have been no need for as we were still at the beck and call of the EU.