R v Instan
A person who voluntarily undertakes to care for a dependant may be liable for manslaughter if she fails to do so.
Facts
Miss Instan lived with her 73 year old aunt, who was in good health until she developed gangrene in her leg and became unable to look after herself. Miss Instan lived in the house, was supported by her aunt's money, and was the only person who knew of her condition. For the last 12 days of the aunt's life, Miss Instan gave her no food and did not call a doctor, and the aunt died. Miss Instan was convicted of manslaughter.
Legal principle
The court upheld the conviction. Lord Coleridge CJ said that the prisoner was under a moral obligation to her aunt, and that a legal common law duty arose from her having taken upon herself the care of her aunt, who was dependent on her and could not obtain help from anyone else. Her failure to perform that duty, which accelerated the aunt's death, was a sufficient basis for liability for 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 Gibbins and Proctor (1918) 13 Cr App R 134
- 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.
