R v Instan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Criminal law in English law
Part of the common law series
Classes of crimes
Summary  · Indictable
Hybrid offence  · Regulatory offences
Lesser included offence
Elements of crimes
Actus reus  · Causation
Mens rea  · Intention (general)
Intention in English law  · Recklessness
Criminal negligence  · Corporate liability
Vicarious liability  · Strict liability
Omission  · Concurrence
Ignorantia juris non excusat
Inchoate offences
Incitement  · Conspiracy
Accessory  · Attempt
Common purpose
Defences
Consent
Duress  · Necessity  · Self-defence
Provocation  · Diminished responsibility
Insanity
Crimes against the person
Common assault  · Battery
Actual bodily harm  · Grievous bodily harm
Offences Against The Person Act 1861
Murder  · Manslaughter
Corporate manslaughter  · Harassment
Public order and crimes against property
Criminal Damage Act 1971
Malicious Damage Act 1861
Public Order Act 1986
Public nuisance
Crimes of dishonesty
Theft Act 1968  · Theft  · Dishonesty
Robbery  · Burglary  · TWOC
Deception  · Deception offences
Blackmail  · Handling
Theft Act 1978  · Forgery
Fraud Act 2006  · Computer crime
Sexual crimes
Rape  · Kidnapping
Crimes against justice
Bribery  · Perjury
Obstruction of justice
See also Criminal Procedure
Criminal Defences
Other areas of the common law
Contract law  · Tort law  · Property law
Wills and trusts  · Evidence
Portals: Law  · Criminal justice

R v. Instan (1893) 1 QB 450 is an English criminal law case, relating to actus reus, and the duty of care of relatives to their (supposedly) loved ones.

Contents

[edit] Facts

A sick woman died while living with her niece. The niece was an adult, and had been living with her aunt because she had no means of supporting herself. Her 72-year-old aunt suffered a debilitating disease and for ten days, the young woman did not supply her aunt food or medical attention, and did not inform anyone of her aunt's ailments. The aunt, who was physically incapable of leaving her bed, died from exaustion brought on by the gangrene.

[edit] Judgment

The niece was found guilty of manslaughter, on the basis that there was a blood relation between the niece and aunt. This generated a duty of care of the niece for the aunt to help. The intentional neglect of the aunt was consequently a crime. Lord Coleridge CJ wrote, that it would be "a slur on justice" were the niece's behaviour to go unpunished

“It would not be correct to say that every moral obligation involves a legal duty; but every legal duty is founded on a moral obligation.”

[edit] See also

[edit] Notes

[edit] External links

  • Bailii.org, a free online database for English and Irish legal materials.