R v Gibbins and Proctor
A parent, and a partner who has assumed responsibility for a child, may be guilty of murder by deliberately starving the child.
Facts
Mr Gibbins lived with his partner, Edith Proctor, and several children, including his seven year old daughter Nelly. They deliberately kept Nelly apart from the other children and starved her, and she died. Mr Gibbins earned good wages and gave money to Ms Proctor for the household. Both were convicted of murder.
Legal principle
The Court of Criminal Appeal upheld the convictions. Mr Gibbins was under a duty as Nelly's father to provide her with food. Ms Proctor was under a duty because she had taken his money for the household and had assumed responsibility for the children by living with him as his wife. Because they had withheld food with the intention of causing grievous bodily harm, their failure to act was sufficient for murder, not just manslaughter.
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 Evans (Gemma) [2009] EWCA Crim 650, [2009] 1 WLR 1999
- 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.
