R v Evans (Gemma) [2009] EWCA Crim 650

Facts

• Gemma Evans procured heroin and provided it to her half-sister.
• The half-sister self-administered the heroin and exhibited symptoms indicative of an overdose.
• Evans, aware of the overdose, did not seek medical assistance, remaining with her mother and half-sister, and checked on her at intervals throughout the night.
• The next morning, Evans’ half-sister was found deceased; the cause of death was heroin poisoning.
• The prosecution argued that Evans’ action in providing the heroin created a significant risk and established a duty of care, which she breached by failing to seek help.
• The defense contested the applicability of the duty of care in these circumstances.

Issues

1. Whether Gemma Evans owed a duty of care to her half-sister after providing the heroin and failing to seek medical assistance.
2. Whether the judge erred in instructing the jury regarding the existence and scope of the duty of care in gross negligence manslaughter.
3. Whether leaving the issue of duty of care to the jury conflicted with established legal authority or contravened Articles 6 and 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Decision

• The Court of Appeal dismissed Evans’ appeal and upheld the conviction.
• The court held that where an individual creates or contributes to a dangerous or life-threatening situation, a duty of care to take reasonable steps to mitigate the danger arises.
• The court found that the act of providing heroin, coupled with the failure to seek medical assistance, was sufficient to establish a duty of care in this context.
• Previous cases (including R v Adomako, R v Miller, and R v Kennedy) supported the principle that a person who contributes to a dangerous situation incurs a responsibility to act.
• The jury had been properly directed on the issue of duty of care.

Legal Principles

• A duty of care for gross negligence manslaughter arises where an individual creates or materially contributes to a life-threatening situation.
• The obligation to act is not limited to the infliction of direct physical harm, but extends to cases of significant contribution to a dangerous situation.
• Failure to take reasonable steps to mitigate a recognized danger can satisfy the elements of gross negligence manslaughter.
• Past authority confirms that legal responsibility is triggered by contribution to a risk, not solely by assault or physical harm.

Conclusion

R v Evans (Gemma) [2009] EWCA Crim 650 clarified that a duty of care arises in gross negligence manslaughter when an individual creates or contributes to a life-threatening situation and fails to take reasonable steps to prevent harm, thus expanding the scope of liability beyond direct acts of harm to include responsibility for omissions following dangerous contributions.