By Jacinta Landa
The law concerning manslaughter has remained unchallenged for decades. As established in Wilson v The Queen, a person is liable for the crime of manslaughter if it can be proven that he has intentionally and voluntarily performed a dangerous act leading to another’s death. Furthermore, ‘an act is dangerous if a reasonable person, in the position of the accused… would have realised that the act exposed another person... to a risk of injury.’ These tests are applied in cases of manslaughter to ensure objectivity and provide insight into the accused actions; that is, by disregarding the grave risks associated with an action, one’s behaviour markedly deviates from what is expected of an average citizen. However, where an accused suffers from an intellectual disability, should it be lawful to attribute the intellectual disability of the accused to a ‘reasonable person’ when applying the above tests? This question was addressed by the New South Wales Supreme Court in the decision R v Michael Thomas [2015] NSWSC 537.
Comments