KembaraXtra – Case Law

Lowe (1973) CA

Facts

The defendant, Lowe, was of subnormal intelligence. His young daughter became ill and later died from dehydration and emaciation.

Lowe had told his girlfriend to take the child to the doctor, but she failed to do so.

Lowe was convicted of:

• manslaughter; and
• cruelty by wilful neglect under s 1(1) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933.

Legal Issue

The issue was whether a deliberate omission or failure to act, which contributed to the death of a child, was sufficient to amount to manslaughter.

The court considered the distinction between:

• an act of commission — positively doing something that causes harm; and
• an act of omission — failing to do something which results in harm.

Held

The Court of Appeal held that there was a clear distinction between an act and an omission.

Phillimore LJ explained that if a person positively strikes a child in a way likely to cause harm and the child dies, it may be appropriate to charge that person with manslaughter.

However, where a person merely fails to act, even deliberately, and the omission leads to injury and death, manslaughter should not automatically follow.

The manslaughter conviction was therefore not justified simply because Lowe had deliberately neglected the child.

Legal Principle

A deliberate omission does not automatically amount to manslaughter, even where the omission contributes to the victim’s death.

The prosecution must establish all the necessary requirements for manslaughter, including the existence and breach of a relevant legal duty.

Complete — What Lowe Establishes

Lowe establishes that:

• criminal law distinguishes between acts and omissions;
• deliberate neglect does not automatically make D guilty of manslaughter;
• liability for a statutory offence of neglect is separate from liability for manslaughter; and
• the prosecution must prove all the necessary elements of manslaughter.

What Is Not Complete / Limits of the Rule

Lowe does not mean that manslaughter can never be committed by omission.

A defendant may still be guilty of manslaughter by omission where:

• D owes the victim a legal duty to act;
• D breaches that duty;
• the breach causes the victim’s death; and
• the other requirements of manslaughter are satisfied.

The case only shows that a deliberate omission causing death is not, by itself, automatically manslaughter.

Importance

Lowe is important because it highlights the distinction between commission and omission in criminal law.

It demonstrates that the courts must carefully examine whether the defendant’s failure to act satisfies the legal requirements of the offence rather than assuming that an omission resulting in death automatically amounts to manslaughter.

Key Rule

A deliberate omission, even where it contributes to death, does not automatically amount to manslaughter. The necessary legal duty and all elements of manslaughter must still be proved.