Court of Appeal
| Published date | 01 June 2010 |
| Date | 01 June 2010 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1350/jcla.2010.74.3.632 |
| Subject Matter | Court of Appeal |
Court of Appeal
Spousal Homicide and Foresight of Harm
Rv Khan [2009] EWCA Crim 2, [2009] 4 All ER 544
Keywords Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004, s. 5(1);
Member of same household; Risk; Reasonable steps
This decision is significant, given the lack of precedential authorities
interpreting consequential liability for allowing the death of a vulner-
able adult.
The facts in the case present an egregious picture of domestic abuse
leading to homicide. The principal offender (K) was convicted of the
murder of his 19-year-old wife (S). Three further convictions followed
against two of K’s sisters (S’s cousins) and also in relation to the husband
of one of the sisters. These convictions were within the purview of
s. 5(1) of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 in that
they had allowed the death of a vulnerable adult (S). There had been at
least three separate incidents of extreme violence to S by K, and the last
attack resulted in S’s death. The appellants had not come into contact
with the deceased in the final 12 hours of her life, and had not seen or
been aware of the final murderous attack. They were, however, all living
together in the same household in Roundhay in Leeds. It was contended
by the prosecution that given S’s condition in the final three weeks of
her life, with numerous injuries during the earlier attacks including
fractured ribs, it must have been apparent to each of the appellants that
she had been and was being subjected to serious physical violence. The
trial judge’s direction utilised the terminology within s. 5(1) of the Act
and it was submitted that the judge had misdirected the jury in relation
to what had to be proved. In the context of s. 5(1) a person was to be
regarded as a ‘member’ of a particular household, even if he did not live
in that household, if he visited it so often and for such periods of time
that it was reasonable to regard him as a member of it. It was to be
determined as a question of fact whether the individual appellant’s
contact with the deceased was frequent for the purposes of identifying
him or her as a potential defendant. Moreover, an ‘unlawful’ act was
one that constituted an offence; such an act included a course of conduct
and also an omission. The reference to ‘serious’ harm in s. 5(1)(c) meant
harm that equated to grievous bodily harm for the purposes of the
Offences Against the Person Act 1861. The important identification of a
‘vulnerable adult’ embraced a person aged 16 or over whose ability to
protect himself from violence, abuse or neglect was seriously impaired
through physical or mental disability or illness, through old age or
otherwise. Section 5 provides as follows:
(1) A person (‘D’) is guilty of an offence if—
(a) a child or vulnerable adult (‘V) dies as a result of the unlawful act
of a person who—
196 The Journal of Criminal Law (2010) 74 JCL 196–208
doi:10.1350/jcla.2010.74.3.632
To continue reading
Request your trial