R v Goodfellow [1986] 83 CAR 23

KEY POINTS

• Manslaughter is a legal charge that involves the unlawful killing of another person, and it intersects with charges related to arson causing death by reckless conduct.

• The intentional act of setting fire to one's own residence is considered an unlawful and dangerous act, particularly when it leads to the loss of life.

FACTS

• The appellant, facing charges of arson and manslaughter, set his house on fire to create the impression of a petrol bomb attack, intending to relocate due to conflicts with neighbors.

• In this case, the jury was told that the defendant could be found guilty if the unlawful act posed a recognizable risk of harm to another person, even if not serious, as long as all sober and reasonable people would acknowledge this risk. Importantly, the act didn't have to be directly aimed at the victim as long as there was no fresh intervening cause between the act and the resulting death.

• Following the precedent in R. v. Lawrence, the jury was directed to determine if the defendant's actions created an obvious and serious risk of causing physical injury to someone. They also needed to be satisfied that, having recognized the risk, the defendant took it.

• Despite favorable instructions on the unlawful act aspect of manslaughter, based on the Lawrence case, the appellant was convicted on all charges, leading to an appeal against the manslaughter and reckless arson endangerment convictions.

JUDGEMENT

• The court held that the case could fall within either or both types of manslaughter.

• Regarding the Lawrence aspect, it was conceivable that the jury could have been satisfied that the appellant was acting in a manner that created an obvious and serious risk of causing physical injury and that, having recognized the risk, he proceeded to take it. The case was deemed suitable for the "unlawful and dangerous act".

• The judge's instructions were deemed correct, and the convictions on counts 1 to 10 for manslaughter were neither unsafe nor unsatisfactory. Specifically addressing count 5, the direction regarding the appellant's recklessness concerning whether the lives of the persons upstairs were in danger was considered adequate. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

COMMENTARY

• In a case involving manslaughter, arson, and reckless conduct, the appellant intentionally set fire to his home to create a false impression of a petrol bomb attack due to conflicts with neighbors. Despite favorable jury directions based on the R v Lawrence precedent, the appellant was convicted on three counts of manslaughter, one count of arson, and one count of reckless arson endangerment.

• The appellant's actions, which led to the death of three occupants, were categorized as both a Lawrence-type case and an "unlawful and dangerous act" case. The judge's directions were deemed correct, and the convictions for manslaughter were considered neither unsafe nor unsatisfactory.

• The appeal, including the count related to reckless endangerment, was dismissed.

ORIGINAL ANALYSIS

• A guy set his house on fire with the aim that the others should leave the house (so that they could be placed in a new council house). The fire spread too rapidly and though he saved some, he was unable to save his wife, girlfriend and son, who died.

• The judge directed the jury on the “unlawful and dangerous act” definition as well as the R v Lawrence (1981) 73 Cr.App.R. 1 that he created a “serious and obvious risk” to somebody and took the risk regardless.

• He appealed but the CA held that he could be held guilty for either type of manslaughter.