R v Stone and Dobinson [1977] QB 354

Facts

  • Stone and Dobinson, a couple with limited mental capacity, were the defendants.
  • Stone’s sister, Fanny, with a history of mental health issues, came to live with them.
  • Fanny’s health deteriorated; she was unable to care for herself, suffered malnutrition, and developed severe bedsores.
  • The defendants were aware of Fanny’s condition but failed to seek medical help.
  • Fanny died from blood poisoning caused by neglect.
  • The prosecution alleged that the omission of care constituted the actus reus for manslaughter.

Issues

  1. Whether Stone and Dobinson owed a legal duty of care to Fanny based on their relationship and actions.
  2. Whether an omission—specifically, the failure to provide necessary care and seek medical assistance—could fulfill the actus reus for manslaughter.
  3. Whether the defendants’ conduct reached the threshold of gross negligence required for criminal liability in manslaughter.
  4. Whether the omission directly caused Fanny’s death, fulfilling the requirement of causation for manslaughter.

Decision

  • The Court of Appeal found that Stone and Dobinson had assumed a duty of care towards Fanny by their conduct.
  • Both defendants were found to have voluntarily undertaken responsibility, especially as Dobinson provided food and hygiene assistance.
  • Their failure to obtain medical care constituted a breach of this duty.
  • The omission amounted to gross negligence, meeting the standard for gross negligence manslaughter.
  • The causal link between the omission and Fanny's death was established; had they sought reasonable care, Fanny likely would have survived.

Legal Principles

  • Criminal liability for omissions requires the existence of a duty to act, which may arise from assumption of responsibility, not just formal agreements or blood relationships.
  • A voluntary assumption of responsibility—demonstrated by actions such as providing care—creates a duty that, if breached, can support manslaughter charges.
  • Gross negligence manslaughter requires a very high degree of negligence, such as recklessness or indifference to obvious risk.
  • Causation must be proven: the failure to act must directly result in the victim’s harm or death.
  • The case clarifies that criminal liability for omission arises where there has been a clear duty of care that is grossly breached.

Conclusion

R v Stone and Dobinson [1977] QB 354 established that a voluntary assumption of duty of care, if breached by gross negligence and causing death, can satisfy the actus reus for manslaughter by omission, extending criminal liability beyond formal relationships to those who accept responsibility for another’s welfare.

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