Search

The article discusses a court case that concerned an appeal against a ruling at Newcastle Crown Court that it would not be open to the jury to convict either respondent of manslaughter. In R v JM and SM, the trial judge halted the proceedings based on the meaning of the term "dangerousness" in the context of constructive manslaughter. The case R v Church is also discussed.

Whilst it is true that the one-punch killer has crossed a moral threshold and acted wrongfully by committing an assault, his victim's death may be both unforeseen and unforeseeable. The gap between what was foreseen/foreseeable and death may thus be considerable. This article suggests it is too great; convicting the killer of manslaughter places too much weight on the element of luck. The task then is to identify an appropriate principle for regulating the gap and in the course of tackling this task the article considers and rejects, inter alia, a recent recommendation by the Law Reform Commission of Ireland. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Focuses on the ruling of the Court of Appeals in Great Britain on the case "R v. Smith," which the court take into account the defendant's obsessive and jealous nature sufficient for provocation as an excuse to reduce the offense from murder to manslaughter. Facts of the case; Merits of the case; Comments from Alan Reed for the decision.