R v Shepherd (1862) 9 Cox CC 123
OMISSION – ACTUS REUS – DUTY OF CARE
Facts
The defendant was the mother of an eighteen year old girl who had died as a result of complications during childbirth. After going into labour, the girl had been taken into her stepfather’s home where both he and her mother attempted to care for her. However, the defendant had failed to take any steps to seek assistance from the midwife, which it was suggested may have saved the girl’s life. The defendant also presented evidence that she lacked any means to pay for the services of a midwife had one been contacted. She was charged with the manslaughter of her daughter.
Issues
The issue was whether the mother had a legal obligation to seek assistance from the midwife, in circumstances where the daughter was over the age of eighteen, and by extension whether the omission to do so could constitute the acuts reus for manslaughter.
Decision/Outcome
The court held that as the victim was over the age of eighteen, the defendant was not under any legal duty to assist her by calling the midwife; in the words of Erle CJ, the ratio of the decision was that:
“…the girl was beyond the age of childhood, and was entirely emancipated” (p. 9).
There was therefore no actus reus for manslaughter and the defendant was accordingly acquitted.
It is now questionable whether this case remains good law in the light of subsequent decisions such as R v Stone and Dobinson [1977] QB 345, in which the court accepted the existence of a duty of care between blood relatives even where the victim was an adult.
Updated 20 March 2026
This case note broadly and accurately describes the decision in R v Shepherd (1862) 9 Cox CC 123. The article’s concluding observation — that the case is questionable in light of R v Stone and Dobinson [1977] QB 345 — remains correct. In Stone and Dobinson, the Court of Appeal held that a duty of care capable of grounding liability for manslaughter by omission can arise from the assumption of responsibility for a vulnerable adult, including a blood relative. That principle has been affirmed and developed in subsequent case law, notably R v Evans [2009] EWCA Crim 650, [2009] 1 WLR 1999, where the Court of Appeal confirmed that a duty to act can arise where a defendant has created or contributed to a dangerous situation. The general legal framework for omissions liability in criminal law has not been altered by statute since this article was written. R v Shepherd therefore retains historical and academic significance as an early illustration of the limits of omissions liability, but its conclusion that a parent owes no duty to an adult child should be treated with considerable caution in light of the modern case law on assumed responsibility.
