Unlawful act manslaughter - thin skull rule

Watch this thread
Es*
Badges: 1
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#1
Report Thread starter 14 years ago
#1
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.
0
reply
redjon1
Badges: 0
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#2
Report 14 years ago
#2
(Original post by 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.
0
reply
Es*
Badges: 1
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#3
Report Thread starter 14 years ago
#3
(Original post by 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.
0
reply
DannyBoy1627_xX
Badges: 1
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#4
Report 7 months ago
#4
You go girl!!!!
0
reply
DannyBoy1627_xX
Badges: 1
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#5
Report 7 months ago
#5
(Original post by DannyBoy1627_xX)
You go girl!!!
:mad:
0
reply
DannyBoy1627_xX
Badges: 1
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#6
Report 7 months ago
#6
(Original post by 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?

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.
💃🏻💃🏻💃🏻
0
reply
the bear
Badges: 20
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#7
Report 7 months ago
#7
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.
0
reply
Trinculo
Badges: 21
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#8
Report 7 months ago
#8
(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.
1
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Y13's - If you haven't confirmed your firm and insurance choices yet, why is that?

I am waiting until the deadline in case anything in my life changes (5)
17.24%
I am waiting until the deadline in case something else changes (e.g. exams/pandemic related concerns) (3)
10.34%
I am waiting until I can see the unis in person (4)
13.79%
I still have more questions before I make my decision (3)
10.34%
No reason, just haven't entered it yet (7)
24.14%
Something else (let us know in the thread!) (7)
24.14%

Watched Threads

View All