## 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.
