R v Gibbins and Proctor [1918]
Share
R v Gibbins and Proctor [1918] 13 Cr App Rep 134 establishes the principle that a legal duty to act can arise from a moral obligation, particularly within the context of a relationship with the victim. The defendants, Gibbins and Proctor, were convicted of murder based on their neglect and starvation of Gibbins's child.
Gibbins and Proctor, who lived together, failed to provide proper care and nourishment to Gibbins's child, resulting in the child's death due to starvation.
The Court of Criminal Appeal affirmed the convictions for murder. Justice Darling, delivering the judgment, highlighted that Proctor, as the live-in partner of Gibbins, had received money from him explicitly intended for food that would be sufficient for all three of them, including the child. The court held that Proctor had a moral obligation to care for the child, and from this moral duty arose a legal duty. The deliberate failure to fulfil this legal duty led to the tragic death of the child.
Justice Darling emphasised that Proctor's moral obligation, stemming from the family relationship and the financial support provided by Gibbins, translated into a legal duty to care for the child. The court found that this legal duty was deliberately left unperformed, resulting in the child's death. The judgment in Gibbins and Proctor underscores the significance of recognising and fulfilling moral and legal obligations within familial relationships, especially when financial support is provided for the well-being of all members.
This case contributes to the legal understanding that neglect or omission to fulfil a duty, especially one derived from a moral obligation within a specific relationship, can give rise to criminal liability, even in cases of serious offences such as murder.
Gibbins and Proctor, who lived together, failed to provide proper care and nourishment to Gibbins's child, resulting in the child's death due to starvation.
The Court of Criminal Appeal affirmed the convictions for murder. Justice Darling, delivering the judgment, highlighted that Proctor, as the live-in partner of Gibbins, had received money from him explicitly intended for food that would be sufficient for all three of them, including the child. The court held that Proctor had a moral obligation to care for the child, and from this moral duty arose a legal duty. The deliberate failure to fulfil this legal duty led to the tragic death of the child.
Justice Darling emphasised that Proctor's moral obligation, stemming from the family relationship and the financial support provided by Gibbins, translated into a legal duty to care for the child. The court found that this legal duty was deliberately left unperformed, resulting in the child's death. The judgment in Gibbins and Proctor underscores the significance of recognising and fulfilling moral and legal obligations within familial relationships, especially when financial support is provided for the well-being of all members.
This case contributes to the legal understanding that neglect or omission to fulfil a duty, especially one derived from a moral obligation within a specific relationship, can give rise to criminal liability, even in cases of serious offences such as murder.
