R v Gibbins & Proctor (1918) 13 Cr App R 134

Facts

  • The case involved a man (D1) and his mistress (D2), who were jointly indicted for the murder of D1's seven-year-old daughter, Nelly.
  • Evidence at trial showed that Nelly was systematically starved to death.
  • The jury found that both D1 and D2 intentionally deprived Nelly of food, with D2 being the primary motivator.
  • Nelly died as a result of this intentional neglect.
  • Both defendants appealed their convictions to the Court of Criminal Appeal, challenging their criminal responsibility based on omission rather than an act.

Issues

  1. Whether criminal liability for murder can arise from omissions rather than positive acts where a legal duty to act exists.
  2. Whether both D1 and D2 had a legal duty towards Nelly, arising from parental relationship or assumed responsibility.
  3. Whether the required mens rea for murder can be satisfied by intentional omission.

Decision

  • The Court of Criminal Appeal affirmed the convictions of both D1 and D2.
  • It held that D1 had a legal duty to act by virtue of being Nelly’s parent.
  • D2 was found to have assumed responsibility for Nelly and had a corresponding legal duty to provide care.
  • The Court determined that the deliberate omission to act, where such a duty exists, can constitute the actus reus for murder.
  • The presence of intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm (mens rea) was established even though the conduct in question was an omission.

Legal Principles

  • Criminal liability is not confined to positive acts; an omission can suffice where there is a legal duty to act.
  • Legal duty may arise from parental responsibility or by assuming care and control over another, extending liability for omissions beyond parents to those accepting such responsibility.
  • The required mens rea for murder—intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm—applies equally to cases of omission where a duty is owed.
  • This case provided precedent for criminal liability in situations of neglect leading to death, expanding the traditional scope of actus reus.

Conclusion

R v Gibbins & Proctor established that individuals can be criminally liable for murder when, having an established legal duty to act—such as through parenthood or assumed custodial responsibility—they intentionally fail to do so, resulting in death. The case is foundational in recognising omission as a basis for liability where a duty exists and the requisite intent is present.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal