R v Lowe
A failure to act, such as neglecting a child, cannot be the unlawful act for constructive manslaughter.
Facts
Mr Lowe was a man of low intelligence whose nine week old daughter became ill and died from dehydration and gross emaciation. He had failed to call a doctor in time. He was convicted of wilfully neglecting the child under the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, and the judge directed the jury that this meant he was automatically guilty of manslaughter.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal quashed the manslaughter conviction. Phillimore LJ said that there is a clear distinction between an act of commission and an act of omission, and that an omission, even a deliberate one, cannot be the unlawful act for the purposes of unlawful act manslaughter. Where a death results from an omission, the defendant can be guilty of manslaughter only on the basis of gross negligence, which the jury had not been asked to consider.
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 Instan [1893] 1 QB 450
- R v Khan and Khan [1998] Crim LR 830
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.
