What is the ratio in R v Gibbins and Proctor?

Criminal liability can arise from omissions where defendants owe a duty of care to the victim. The duty can arise from family relationships or voluntary assumption of responsibility.

What did the court decide in R v Gibbins and Proctor?

Both defendants were convicted of murder for deliberately starving a child to death, establishing that omissions can ground liability for serious offences.

Why is R v Gibbins and Proctor important for criminal law?

It established fundamental principles about when omissions can create criminal liability, particularly regarding parental duties and assumed responsibilities for vulnerable persons.

What is the ratio in R v Gibbins and Proctor?

Criminal liability can arise from omissions where defendants owe a duty of care to the victim. The duty can arise from family relationships or voluntary assumption of responsibility.

What did the court decide in R v Gibbins and Proctor?

Both defendants were convicted of murder for deliberately starving a child to death, establishing that omissions can ground liability for serious offences.

Why is R v Gibbins and Proctor important for criminal law?

It established fundamental principles about when omissions can create criminal liability, particularly regarding parental duties and assumed responsibilities for vulnerable persons.

Criminal1 min read

R v Gibbins and Proctor

(1918) 13 Cr App R 134Court of Criminal Appeal1918

Cite this case in OSCOLA →All Criminal cases →

“Criminal liability established for murder by omission where duty to act exists”

Facts

Gibbins lived with his partner Proctor and his seven-year-old daughter from a previous relationship. Gibbins gave money to Proctor for household expenses including food, but they deliberately withheld food from the child. The child died from starvation, and both defendants were charged with murder.

Issues

Whether a person can be liable for murder by omission, and what constitutes a sufficient duty of care to establish such liability.

Held

Both defendants were guilty of murder. Gibbins had a duty as the father to provide for his child, and Proctor had assumed a duty of care by accepting money for the child's keep and taking charge of the household.

Significance

This case established the fundamental principle that criminal liability for homicide can arise from omission where there is a duty to act. It remains a cornerstone case for understanding when failure to act can constitute murder.

Read the full brief — free

You're reading the free summary of R v Gibbins and Proctor. Create a free account to unlock the full reasoning, the cited authorities and the verbatim judgment — plus structured briefs for 412,000+ UK judgments.

Create free account Already have one? Sign in

No card required. Free forever.

OSCOLA Citation

R v Gibbins and Proctor (1918) 13 Cr App R 134 (CCA)

Criminal LawHomicideOmissions

Read the full judgment elsewhere

Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.

LLBGDL

More Criminal cases

R v Reece Martin Kelly

[2026] EWCA Crim 268

R v Richard Alexander Welsh

[2026] EWCA Crim 466

R v Robert Michael Thomas

[2026] EWCA Crim 305

This case is reproduced verbatim from the public judgment published by The National Archives under the UK Government's Open Government Licence v3.0. If you appear in this case and believe it should not be published — for example because your conviction was quashed on appeal, you have statutory anonymity, or for other privacy reasons — request removal here.