Crime XXXXXXXVII - 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
© 2019 by Dyarne Ward
Comments
Post a Comment