The defendants appealed against their convictions for allowing the death of a vulnerable adult against section 4 of the 2004 Act. The deceased was beaten to death by her violent husband. The defendants were other members of the family who, it was said must have been aware of the beatings for at least three weeks before the death, but had done nothing. The judge directed the jury that the phrase ‘frequent contact’ in section 5(1)(a)(ii) were ordinary words not requiring interpretation. The defendants argued that they should have been given the particular meaning in 5(1)(d)(i)(iii), which would, they said have restricted that they could be said to have foreseen.
Held: The appeals failed. Whether there had been frequent contact was to be answered independently of the definitions in 5(1)(d). It was free standing. In other circumstances a judge might have explored what the defendant might have been expected to do, but not in this case.
Judges:
Lord Judge LCJ, Forbes and Slade JJ
Citations:
[2009] EWCA Crim 2, [2009] Crim LR 348, [2009] 1 Cr App R 28
Links:
Statutes:
Domestic Violence, Crimes and Victims Act 2004 4
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Crime
Updated: 23 October 2022; Ref: scu.280016
