Crime XXXXXXVII – Gross Negligence Manslaughter IX

Similarly in R v Willoughby (2004) the fact that the defendant had committed a crime did not prevent the application of the duty of care principle.

R v Willoughby (2004) the defendant, a pub owner was in debt and unable to make enough money to cover his debts, he employed the deceased to set fire to his pub so that he could claim the insurance payout. As agreed the deceased went around to set fire to the pub but while he was doing so there was an explosion and he died as a result. The defendant was charged and convicted for manslaughter. The defense appealed on the grounds that the defendant did not owe the victim a duty of care.

The appeal was dismissed. It was held that once the judge has decided that there was enough evidence to establish a duty of care, whether a duty or care exists or otherwise is for a jury to decide and the jury having so decided and all the other elements satisfied, the conviction must stand.

Copyright © 2018 by Dyarne Ward

You may also like

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *