## Facts

- Gibbins and his partner Proctor were cohabiting and caring for Gibbins’s seven-year-old daughter, Nelly.
- Nelly was deliberately neglected and starved by both defendants, resulting in her death.
- Proctor, although not Nelly’s biological parent, received money from Gibbins to provide food for all three individuals.
- The prosecution argued, and the court accepted, that Proctor’s receipt of money created a responsibility to care for and feed Nelly.
- The neglect was intentional and formed the factual basis for murder charges against both defendants.

## Issues

1. Whether a duty to act, breach of which could result in criminal liability, may arise from a moral obligation or assumption of responsibility for the welfare of another.
2. Whether Proctor, not being Nelly’s biological parent but having accepted responsibility and funds for Nelly’s care, could be found legally responsible for her death through omission.
3. Whether the defendants had both a duty to act and the necessary mens rea for criminal liability in the death of Nelly.

## Decision

- The court held that a moral obligation, in the form of Proctor’s acceptance of money to care for Nelly, was sufficient to constitute a legal duty to act.
- Both Gibbins and Proctor were found to have breached this duty by deliberately failing to provide Nelly with nourishment, resulting in her death.
- The omission to act, coupled with the intent to harm (mens rea), satisfied the requirements for murder.
- Proctor’s lack of biological ties did not negate legal responsibility due to the assumption of responsibility for Nelly’s welfare.

## Legal Principles

- Criminal liability for omissions requires an established legal duty to act; this duty may arise from relationships, contracts, or an assumption of responsibility.
- A moral obligation, where it results in reliance or the assumption of a dependent’s care, may become a legal duty enforceable under criminal law.
- Omission may constitute the actus reus for criminal offences where it is accompanied by the requisite mens rea.
- Intention or recklessness regarding resulting harm is essential for liability in serious offences such as murder.

## Conclusion

R v Gibbins and Proctor (1918) established that criminal liability may arise from an omission where a duty to act is created by the defendant’s assumption of responsibility—particularly when supported by a moral obligation—thereby significantly influencing the legal understanding of omissions and duties in English criminal law.

R v Gibbins and Proctor (1918) 13 Cr App Rep 134