Legal Case brief
R v Evans (Gemma) [2009] EWCA Crim 650
Manslaughter by gross negligence – duty of care
Facts
Evans purchased heroin and gave it to her half-sister who later self-ingested the drug. Evans recognised that the victim had symptoms akin to those of an overdose and remained with her mother and the victim, without calling for medical assistance as they feared getting into trouble. They checked on the victim at intervals throughout the evening and when they awoke the following morning the victim was dead. The cause of death was poisoning from heroin. The primary dispute in the first instance was whether the supply of drugs to her half-sister had created a duty of care between Evans and her half-sister. The jury agreed that there was a duty owed and Evans was convicted. Evans subsequently appealed.
Issues
Evans submitted that the judge had erred in his instruction to the jury regarding duty of care in the circumstances and that it was inconsistent with previous authority to do so. Further, she argued that the judge was wrong to leave the question of duty of care to the jury and that doing so conflicted the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 Article 6 and 7.
Decision/Outcome
Appeal dismissed. It was held that none of the previous authority Evans referred to had dealt with manslaughter. Applying R v Adomako [1994] 3 All ER 79, R v Miller [1983] 2 AC 161 and R v Kennedy [2007] All ER (D) 247 (Oct), it was held that in cases of gross negligence manslaughter, if an individual caused or contributed to creating a life-threatening situation; a consequent duty would normally arise to take reasonable steps to save the person’s life. On the facts of this case, Evans created such a situation by providing the heroin to her half-sister and had not taken subsequent steps to negate the danger created.
Updated 20 March 2026
This case brief accurately summarises R v Evans (Gemma) [2009] EWCA Crim 650 and the legal principles it established. The decision remains good law. The Court of Appeal’s confirmation that a duty of care in gross negligence manslaughter can arise where a defendant has caused or contributed to a life-threatening situation — drawing on R v Adomako [1994] 3 All ER 79 and R v Miller [1983] 2 AC 161 — has not been overturned and continues to be applied in subsequent cases.
One point worth noting: the article’s reference to R v Kennedy [2007] is accurate in the sense that the House of Lords’ decision in that case (that a supplier of drugs is not liable for manslaughter where the victim freely and voluntarily self-administers) forms part of the legal backdrop to Evans. The Court of Appeal in Evans distinguished the position by grounding liability not in the supply itself but in the defendant’s subsequent failure to act once she recognised the danger — a distinction that remains legally important and is correctly implied in the brief.
No subsequent statutory changes or appellate decisions have materially altered the principles described. The article is suitable for current study purposes, though students should be aware that the boundaries of duty of care in gross negligence manslaughter continue to be explored in later cases such as R v Broughton [2020] EWCA Crim 1093, which applied and refined the Evans principles in the context of a drug-related death at a festival.
