Evans, R v [2009] EWCA Crim 650 (02 April 2009)

Evans, R v [2009] EWCA Crim 650 (02 April 2009)

Where a defendant has supplied drugs and is aware that the recipient is suffering a life-threatening overdose, a duty of care to take reasonable steps to assist arises. The existence of such a duty is a question of law for the judge, but on the facts found by the jury, the appellant was under a clear duty to act. The judge's directions, though following prior authority, should have reserved the duty question for the judge, but this did not render the conviction unsafe as the facts established the duty as a matter of law.

Citation
[2009] EWCA Crim 650
Parties
Prosecution: R; Appellant/defendant: Gemma Evans
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 April 2009
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
appeal dismissed; conviction upheld
Legal Topics
Gross Negligence Manslaughter, Duty of Care, Omission Liability, Supply of Drugs, Jury Directions
Criminal Law Gross Negligence Manslaughter Duty of Care Omission Liability Supply of Drugs Jury Directions

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R

Prosecution

Gemma Evans

Appellant/defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant owed a duty of care to the deceased for the purposes of gross negligence manslaughter
  2. 2 Whether the judge or jury should determine the existence of a duty of care in gross negligence manslaughter cases
  3. 3 Whether the judge's directions to the jury on duty of care were correct in law

Ratio Decidendi

Where a defendant has supplied drugs and is aware that the recipient is suffering a life-threatening overdose, a duty of care to take reasonable steps to assist arises. The existence of such a duty is a question of law for the judge, but on the facts found by the jury, the appellant was under a clear duty to act. The judge's directions, though following prior authority, should have reserved the duty question for the judge, but this did not render the conviction unsafe as the facts established the duty as a matter of law.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed; conviction upheld