DPP v Newbury

Die Mercurii, 12° Maii 1976

Parliamentary Archives,
HL/PO/JU/4/3/1282

HOUSE OF LORDS

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
(RESPONDENT)

v.

NEWBURY (APPELLANT)

(ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL
(CRIMINAL DIVISION))

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

(RESPONDENT)

v.

JONES (APPELLANT)

(ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL
(CRIMINAL DIVISION))

[CONSOLIDATED APPEALS]

Lord Diplock
Lord Simon of Glaisdale
Lord Kilbrandon
Lord Salmon
Lord Edmund-Davies

Lord Diplock

my lords,

I have had the advantage of reading in draft the speech prepared by my
noble and learned friend, Lord Salmon, and for the reasons given by him,
I would dismiss the appeal.

Lord Simon of Glaisdale

my lords.

I have had the advantage of reading in draft the speech to be delivered
by my noble and learned friend. Lord Salmon. I agree with it, and I would
therefore dismiss the appeal.

Lord Kilbrandon

MY LORDS,

I too have had the advantage of reading in draft the speech prepared
by my noble and learned friend Lord Salmon. I agree with it, and I would
therefore dismiss the appeal.

Lord Salmon

MY LORDS,

On the llth October 1974 the train travelling from Pontypridd to Cardiff
was approaching a bridge which crossed the railway line. The guard was
sitting next to the driver of the train in the front cab. The driver noticed
the heads of three boys above the parapet of the bridge. He saw one of
the boys push something off the parapet towards the oncoming train. This
proved to be part of a paving stone which some workmen had left on the
parapet. It came through the glass window of the cab in which the driver
and the guard were sitting, struck the guard and killed him. There was

2

ample evidence that just as the train was about to reach the bridge the
two appellants, who were each about 15 years of age, were jointly concerned
in pushing over the parapet the piece of paving stone which killed the guard.
They were jointly charged with manslaughter and after a very fair and
lucid summing up, each was found guilty. Both of them appealed against
conviction and sentence and their appeals against conviction were dis-
missed. The appellants now appeal to this House. The point of law
certified to be of general public importance is " can a defendant be properly
" convicted of manslaughter, when his mind is not affected by drink or drugs,
" if he did not foresee that his act might cause harm to another?"

The learned trial judge did not direct the jury that they should acquit
the appellants unless they were satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that
the appellants had foreseen that they might cause harm to someone by
pushing the piece of paving stone off the parapet into the path of the
approaching train. In my view the learned trial judge was quite right not
to give such a direction to the jury. The direction which he gave is com-
pletely in accordance with established law, which, possibly with one…