Legal Case Summary
R v Slingsby [1995] Crim LR 570
Manslaughter – Assault – Consent – Accidental death
Facts
The defendant, Simon Slingsby, penetrated the complainant’s vagina and rectum with his fingers, accidentally cutting her with the signet ring he was wearing. The complainant did not notice the internal cuts, which later became infected, causing the complainant to develop septicaemia and die. The defendant was convicted of manslaughter under sections 20 and 47 of the Offences Against a Persons Act 1861, in the Crown Court.
Issue
At its highest, whether Slingsby should be convicted of manslaughter and whether his actions had constituted assault or unlawful under ss 20 and or 47 of the Act. The actions were lawful and not assault in circumstances where no harm was intended and consent had been obtained to carry out vigorous and legal sexual acts.
Decision / Outcome
Judge J held that the activity of inserting fingers into the vagina and rectum for sexual pleasure was not in itself an assault and was not an unlawful act, where consent had been obtained. The defence of consent to injury had not arisen into question as there had been no intent to injure the complainant. Rather, it was an unfortunate and accidental consequence of the activity that only occurred because the defendant was wearing a signet ring. It had only been considered an assault as an injury had occurred. Therefore, it was held to be contrary to principle to convict Slingsby of manslaughter where an unforeseen and unintended injury had occurred, arising from vigorous consensual sexual activity. The appeal was allowed and the conviction was quashed.
Updated 20 March 2026
This summary of R v Slingsby [1995] Crim LR 570 is broadly accurate. The case remains good law as an illustration of the principle that where a defendant’s acts are not themselves unlawful (because the complainant consented to the sexual activity and no assault is thereby committed), there is no unlawful act upon which to found a conviction for unlawful act manslaughter.
One factual point worth noting: the article states that Slingsby was convicted in the Crown Court and then appealed. The reported decision is that of Judge J sitting at first instance, who directed an acquittal (ruling there was no case to answer on the manslaughter charge), rather than a conviction followed by a successful appeal. Readers should be aware of this distinction, as it slightly affects how the procedural outcome is understood, though the substantive legal principle described is correct.
The article correctly identifies the relevance of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (noting there is a minor typographical error in the article rendering the Act’s name as ‘Offences Against a Persons Act 1861’). The legal framework around consent, unlawful act manslaughter, and the 1861 Act in this context has not been materially altered by subsequent legislation. The decision in R v Brown [1994] 1 AC 212 (House of Lords) is closely related background law — Slingsby is distinguishable from Brown precisely because in Slingsby there was no intent to cause harm and the acts were not in themselves assaults. This distinction remains settled law. No subsequent statutory changes or appellate decisions have undermined the authority of Slingsby on this point.
