R v Willoughby [2004]

1. Facts:

• Defendant: Appellant, owner of an old disused pub.

• Action: Requested Mr. Drury to help set fire to the pub to claim on the insurance.

• Incident: An explosion occurred during the fire, leading to the collapse of the building and the death of Mr. Drury.

2. Outcome:

• Verdict: Convicted of gross negligence manslaughter.

• Reasoning: The court found that despite the appellant's own illegal actions in setting the fire, he still owed a duty of care to Mr. Drury. The jury was tasked with determining whether the appellant's actions constituted gross negligence leading to Mr. Drury's death.

3. Impact and Analysis:

• Duty of Care:

◦ Established Duty: The case clarified that a duty of care can be imposed even when both parties are engaged in illegal activities. The appellant's responsibility extended to ensuring that his actions did not foreseeably harm others.

◦ Jury's Role: The jury's role in assessing whether the duty of care was breached and whether the breach amounted to gross negligence was crucial in this case.

• Legal Implications:

◦ Gross Negligence Manslaughter: Reinforced that individuals can be held criminally liable for gross negligence manslaughter even when involved in illegal activities if their actions foreseeably lead to another's death.

◦ Precedent: This case highlights the principle that legal liability for manslaughter is not excluded by the nature of the illegal act but depends on the extent of negligence and foreseeability of harm.