Case Analysis And Report : Wilson V. R. Facts

1355 Words6 Pages
CASE ANALYSIS AND REPORT WILSON V R FACTS: Daryl Wilson was at a local hotel for the purchase of alcohol. In the vicinity of the hotel he encountered George Ormsby, who, at the time, was inebriated and allegedly bellicose. An altercation between the men ensued, resulting in Mr Wilson striking Mr Ormsby in the face. CASE HISTORY: The jury found Mr Wilson guilty of manslaughter. However, Mr Wilson appealed to the Court of Appeal on the grounds that he believed the jury were not sufficiently directed as to the degree or extent of danger required in an act to make it a “dangerous act”, and, thus, make him liable for manslaughter. The Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed the appeal. Mr Wilson appealed once again to the High Court. HIGH COURT: Majority decision: The majority, in reaching its decision, endeavoured to define the principles of manslaughter such that the moral culpability of the accused would be commensurate to their legal responsibility. The majority looked to the nature of manslaughter in English law, where the test to determine the existence of manslaughter was, “the unlawful act must be such as all sober and reasonable people would inevitably recognise must subject the other person to, at least, the risk of some harm resulting therefrom, albeit not serious harm.” However, the majority rejected this view because it did not arise from a case where harm was inflicted intentionally, and because it seemed to ascribe an incommensurate level of criminal liability
Open Document