R v Willoughby
Whether a duty of care exists in gross negligence manslaughter may be a question for the jury, depending on the facts.
Facts
Mr Willoughby owned a pub that was in financial difficulty. He recruited Mr Drury to help him set fire to the pub so that he could claim on the insurance. They poured petrol around the building and set it alight, but there was an explosion, and Mr Drury was killed. Mr Willoughby was convicted of manslaughter on the basis of gross negligence.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction. Rose LJ said that whether a duty of care exists is a matter for the jury once the judge has decided that there is evidence capable of establishing a duty. The fact that Mr Willoughby owned the pub, enlisted Mr Drury for his own purposes and directed what was done, and that the activity was dangerous, could give rise to a duty of care towards Mr Drury. The court also said that the conviction could have been justified on the basis of unlawful act manslaughter, because the arson was an unlawful and dangerous act.
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.
