R v Evans (Gemma)
A person who contributes to a life threatening situation is under a duty to take reasonable steps to save the victim, which can found gross negligence manslaughter.
Facts
Gemma Evans bought heroin and gave it to her 16 year old half sister, Carly, who injected it herself. Carly showed symptoms of an overdose, and Gemma and their mother stayed with her but did not call for medical help, fearing that they would get into trouble. Carly died during the night. Gemma was convicted of gross negligence manslaughter.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction. Gemma was under a duty to take reasonable steps to save Carly's life, because she had contributed to the creation of a state of affairs that she knew, or ought reasonably to have known, had become life threatening, extending the principle in R v Miller. Lord Judge CJ said that whether such a duty arises is a question for the jury, once the judge has decided that there is evidence capable of establishing it.
Related cases on Actus reus and omissions
- Airedale NHS Trust v Bland [1993] AC 789
- DPP v Santana-Bermudez [2003] EWHC 2908 (Admin)
- Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1969] 1 QB 439
- R v Dytham [1979] QB 722
- R v Gibbins and Proctor (1918) 13 Cr App R 134
- R v Instan [1893] 1 QB 450
- R v Khan and Khan [1998] Crim LR 830
- R v Larsonneur (1933) 24 Cr App R 74
Studying criminal law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
