R v Instan

The Queen (or R.) v. Instan[1]
Court	Crown Cases Reserved[1]
Decided	4 February 1893
Citation(s)	(1893) 1 QB 450
Case history
Subsequent action(s)	None
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting	Lord Coleridge CJ
Keywords
Manslaughter Neglect to provide Food or Medical Attendance for Person of Full Age [1]

R v. Instan (1893) 1 QB 450 is an English criminal law manslaughter binding decision, confirming how the actus reus of that offence can be one of inactive negligence (that is, neglect), as the common law is deemed by analogy (abstraction) to impose a basic duty of care onto an adult who voluntarily undertakes the regular care of another. Here, the patient was a relative, had known-to-the defendant gangrene and had in her home the funds for food to maintain both parties. Its jurisprudential explanations for how the common law is arrived at by such a research and analysis process, not in a vacuum, but rather by reference to strong moral obligations has been widely cited by other leading decisions. It is one of the many appeal-level decisions which inform the variety of acts and omissions sufficient to amount to the offence of gross negligence manslaughter, which subtly changes very slightly as society's codes of morality and professional contexts evolve.

Facts[]

The defendant lived with her aunt aged 73 years. The aunt was healthy until shortly before her death. During the last 12 days of her life, she had been incapacitated by a gangrenous foot to the point of immobility. Only the defendant knew of this condition. She appeared not to have made any attempts in obtaining treatment or care for the aunt, neither did she provide her with food with which the aunt thus went without,^[2] but continued residence and dependency on her aunt's estate.^[3] The defendant was charged and convicted of manslaughter.

Judgment[]

Every legal duty (shown as subset A). Every moral obligation (shown as B)

The adult niece was found guilty of manslaughter, on the basis that she had accepted her aunt's money in to pay for their food. She was thus not entitled to "apply it all for her own use" (spend it all on her own food). This generated a duty of care from the niece towards the aunt. The intentional neglect of the aunt was consequently a crime. Lord Coleridge CJ wrote that despite the lack of statute or precedent, 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.”

Financial and sentencing outcome[]

The niece would be disinherited by law, by virtue of the forfeiture rule.

The starting point (considered in sentencing) for such an offence of this exact nature remains a custodial sentence.

See also[]

• English law
  • Making of a new precedent
  • Judicial activism
  • Common law offence
• Homicide in English law
  • Gross negligence manslaughter
    • Criminal negligence - the level that is often called "gross" in the same offence.

Notes[]

External links[]

• Bailii.org, a free online case (law) reports of: England & Wales; Republic of Ireland; Scotland; Northern Ireland; Jersey; St Helena.