R v Lamb [1967] 2 QB 981

KEY POINTS

• It is manslaughter if death results from “an unlawful and dangerous act” on behalf of the accused,” and secondly it is manslaughter if death results from “an extreme degree of carelessness, negligence, on the part of the accused.”

FACTS

• Defendant Terence Walter Lamb (Lamb) was charged with unlawfully killing Timothy O'Donaghue (O'Donaghue). During a playful interaction, Lamb pointed a revolver at O'Donaghue, with two bullets in the cylinder but not aligned with the barrel. Both seemed unconcerned by the situation.

• However, when Lamb pulled the trigger, the cylinder rotated, aligning a bullet with the barrel, and O'Donaghue was fatally shot by the striking pin.

• Lamb claimed that he had no intention to harm O'Donaghue and that the killing was a mistake due to his failure to understand the revolver's rotation and the belief that the bullets were not in the barrel.

COMMENTARY

• Lamb's conduct of pointing the loaded revolver at O'Donaghue, even in jest, created an unjustifiable risk to O'Donaghue's life. By playing with a loaded firearm, Lamb demonstrated a lack of concern for the potential consequences of his actions, which resulted in O'Donaghue's death when the cylinder rotated, aligning a bullet with the barrel.

NOTES

• Involuntary manslaughter is a form of homicide where the defendant did not intend to cause death or serious harm but acted recklessly or negligently, resulting in the death of another person. 

• Meanwhile, constructive manslaughter, a subcategory of involuntary manslaughter, arises when the defendant commits an unlawful and dangerous act that leads to the death of another person. The actus reus element typically involves a criminal act, but the mens rea element is limited to the intention to perform the unlawful act, rather than intending to cause death or serious harm.

ORIGINAL ANALYSIS

• The defendant had been joking around with his friend and fired a gun at him, thinking that neither of the two bullets would be fired since they were either side of the striking pin. It was agreed that this was an accident.

• The judge directed that it is manslaughter if death results from “an unlawful and dangerous act” on behalf of the accused,” and secondly it is manslaughter if death results from “an extreme degree of carelessness, negligence, on the part of the accused.”

• The jury convicted saying that both grounds had been satisfied.

• CA quashed the convictions, saying that the first ground was unfulfilled because: mens rea is an essential ingredient, without which there can be no assault and here there was clearly no mens rea.

• The second ground is correct in law (that criminal negligence can allow a manslaughter conviction) but the defence that this was an understandable accident was never put to the jury, despite its credentials in showing how the act may not have been so negligent.

RELATED CASES

• R v Newbury and Jones