R v Rose (Honey Maria)
For gross negligence manslaughter, the risk of death must be obvious from the information known to the defendant at the time, not from what she would have known if she had acted properly.
Facts
Honey Rose, an optometrist, carried out an eye test on a seven year old boy, Vincent Barker. She failed to examine the back of his eyes properly, so she did not notice signs of a condition that was causing swelling of his brain. He died five months later. If she had examined his eyes properly, she would have seen the warning signs and he would probably have been referred to hospital and saved. She was convicted of gross negligence manslaughter.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal quashed the conviction. Sir Brian Leveson P said that the test of obviousness of the risk of death is objective, but it must be judged by reference to the information available to the defendant at the time of the breach of duty. A reasonably prudent optometrist in Ms Rose's position would not have known of the risk of death, because she had not seen the warning signs, and the jury could not take into account what she would have known if she had carried out the examination properly. A serious and obvious risk of death must be present, not merely a risk that would have been revealed by further investigation.
Related cases on involuntary manslaughter
- DPP v Newbury and Jones [1977] AC 500
- R v Adomako [1995] 1 AC 171
- R v Bateman (1925) 19 Cr App R 8
- R v Bawa-Garba [2016] EWCA Crim 1841
- R v Cato [1976] 1 WLR 110
- R v Cotswold Geotechnical Holdings Ltd [2011] EWCA Crim 1337
- R v Dawson (1985) 81 Cr App R 150
- R v Goodfellow (1986) 83 Cr App R 23
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.
