R v Stone and Dobinson [1977] QB 354

TOPICS: Manslaughter, liability in the case of an omission

MATERIAL FACTS
The man and his mistress lived with his mentally subnormal son.
The mans sister (Fanny Stone: V) came to live with them at his house. She stayed in a room with no ventilation,
toilet or washing facilities. V didnt complain.
V morbidly anxious not to put on weight, denied herself proper meals. Shed keep to her room all day until when
appellants went to public house, she would creep down and make herself a meal She became helplessly infirm
within 3 yrs
The mistress gave the Vs food as she required. V provided her own meals, if she needed anything from the shops, V
would tell the mistress.
The mistress with the help of a neighbour attempted to wash V. Mistress claimed that V would not do anything
without the man, and he ould not bother to do anything, would say to leave it to tomorrow.
Neighbours daughter was a nurse, she didnt help because her was boss down there, she wouldnt do anything
unless he asked, not her sister so she left V to him.
The neighbour who helped the mistress wash V noticed: strong smell coming from her, night dress wet and messed
with her own excreta, back sore. The mistress appeared upset because V hadnt let her attend to her before.
The neighbour advised the mistress to go to social services. The licensee of a public house advised mistress to obtain
doctor. Neighbour volunteered to telephone doctor, appellants incapable of managing the instruments themselves.
They were unsuccessful in calling the doctor. A social worker use to visit the son, nothing mentioned to her.
V refused to hive the appellants the name of her doctor, whom they tried to find but were unsuccessful. The man
tried to get her his own doctor, unsuccessful. No more professional help was sought despite being aware of her poor
condition of health.
3 weeks after the mistress tried to wash V, she died from toxaemia (spread from infected be scores + prolonged
immobilisation + lack of food. Her stomach contained no food products and no natural disease found.
Distinct possibility that V would have survived if she had gone to hospital two weeks ago.
Jury direction:
-consider circumstances in relation to each appellant according to their individual knowledge of the sisters
condition, their appreciation of the need to act, consequences of inaction
- determine whether prosecution established gross neglect of duty of care amounting to reckless disregard of the
sisters health and well-being
Convicted: Manslaughter
GROUNDS OF APPEAL:
1 appellant under no legal duty to care for V or to obtain medical assistance to her
2 insufficient evidence that appellant had assumed duty
3 judge failed to direct jury adequately/at all as to the circumstances in which such a duty arose in law
4 judge wrong in law in directing the jury that a legal duty arose whenever any grown-up chose to undertake
charge of another human who, by reason of infirmity (mental/physical/old age), was incapable of looking after
herself
5 Judge failed to direct the jury at what moment and in what circumstances a person assumed such a duty in
respect of another when that other had been and continued to be resident in a household and to whom the
householder had owed no legal duty; such a direction was essential having regard to the evidence and to the
circumstances which led to the death of the victim
6 no/insufficient evidence that appellant was in breach of such a duty
7 Jury misdirected in circumstances where such a duty existed, the test as to whether or not the appellant was in
breach of it was whether or not he had behaved with reckless disregard for the welfare of the victim but that the
Crown did not have to prove that the appellant was reckless as to whether V lived or died.

FORE
Stone Man (partially deaf, almost blind, low average
intelligence, no appreciable sense of smell)

AGAINST
-Legal duty on the appellants to care for V. Since they
had taken it upon themselves the task of providing or

Dobinson Mistress (ineffectual, inadequate)

-To establish case of manslaughter via negligence,
prosecution must prove that a duty of care exists. Must
be a matter of choice before assumption of duty.
Inaction insufficient. No single authority establishes that
a duty arises simply because a person becomes helpless
in ones home. Necessary to show recklessness
(foresight of the possibility of death, or at least serious
injury to health) to establish a breach of duty.
-Mistress went to Fanny a few days before she died and
asked her if she was okay, she replied yes.
- Appellants entitled to do nothing: where no duty cast
upon them to help, anymore than t is cast upon a man to
rescue a stranger from drowning, however easy such a
rescue might be.

assisting in the provision of her basic needs and that she

occupied a room in the house, once helplessness
supervened they did not place her under the care of
others it is implicit that they had made the choice to
accept the legal duty. She was in effect a prisoner in
their home, unrealistic to contend otherwise.
- V blood relation to Stone, occupying a room in his
house, Dobinson had tried to wash her and taking food
to her as she required. There was ample evidence that
each appellant was aware of her poor condition she was
in by mid-July. No effort made to summon ambulance, or
social services, or police despite being advised to. A
social worker visited the son, nothing mentioned to him.
This situation not analogous to drowning stranger as
they tried to get a doctor and tried to discover previous
doctor. Dobinson helped witht the washing and
provision of food. Duty had been assumed. Impossible to
find fault.

Conviction appeal unsuccessful. Guilty of murder by gross negligence.

Sentence appeal successful

RATIO
>If you voluntarily assume response for another person, you're criminally liable for failure to act/omission to act
1 appellants had assumed duty of care for V and were obliged to summon help or care for her themselves when she
became helplessly infirm
2 since appellants undertook duty of care for V, the breach of duty was reckless disregard of danger to her health
and welfare by indifference to an obvious risk of injury to health and welfare or by actually foreseeing the risk and
determining nevertheless to run it
LEADING CASES
Andrew v DPP [1937] AC 576
R v Lowe [1973] QB 702
CRITICISMS
? Why isnt the neighbour liable since she helped clean up V? She seemed to be more rational unlike the mistress
who was inadequate and ineffectual and the man who was of below average intelligence.