R v Dadson (1850)


  • Dadson shot a person attempting to escape with stolen goods, which was by itself unlawful
  • It was not unlawful to shoot a felon in the same circumstances
  • Dadson didn’t know that his victim was a felon


  • Was Dadson liable of shooting unlawfully with intent to disable; did it matter that Dadson didn’t know that his victim was a felon?


  • Conviction upheld


  • The offence could not be retrospectively justified; at the time of the offence, Dadson could not invoke the defence that he was shooting a felon at a later date
  • Glanville Williams argued that the fact of shooting a (non-)felon should be considered part of the actus reus of the offence, such that Dadson did not commit the offence; ignoring his state of mind, the conduct was permitted by the state
RELATED CASE  R v Clarence (1888)

Posted in Criminal Law Revision Notes.

This page was last updated on 23rd December 2014

© 2020 Webstroke Law - Terms and Privacy Policy