Burdett, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant was convicted on 29th April 2022, following a trial at the Crown Court before Pepperall J and a jury, of manslaughter by gross negligence of his sister, who was aged 61 at the time of her death in January 2019. The Appellant, aged 56 then, lived with his sister and their elderly father in poor conditions characterized by hoarding. The sister suffered from multiple serious medical problems, including a form of multiple sclerosis, rendering her largely immobile and reliant on care from the Appellant and their father. The Appellant received carer’s allowance.

On 15th January 2019, the sister was found deceased on the floor of her bedroom, lying in her own bodily excretions and surrounded by clutter. She was severely emaciated, weighing less than five stone, with extensive pressure sores that had become infected, leading to osteomyelitis and sepsis. Twelve Fentanyl patches, each containing potentially fatal opioid doses, were found on her body.

The Appellant admitted that his sister had fallen about two weeks prior and that he had made her comfortable on the floor, believing she was improving and refraining from calling for help due to her wish not to be admitted to hospital. The indictment charged gross negligence including allowing malnourishment, failure to move her, inadequate cleaning, excessive painkillers, and failure to seek medical assistance.

At sentencing, the judge considered reports indicating the Appellant struggled with basic living skills and lacked previous convictions. The judge found that the sister had been on the floor for at least two weeks, suffering excruciating pain mitigated by Fentanyl sedation, and that there was a serious, foreseeable risk of death early in this period. The judge concluded the offence was committed over several days, with a failure to provide care or seek help, but accepted the Appellant’s genuine love and unrealistic hope for recovery. The Appellant was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment on 30th June 2022. The Appellant appealed against the sentence by leave of a single judge.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the judge erred in categorising the offence under the Sentencing Council’s guideline for gross negligence manslaughter, specifically whether the offence should have been classified as lower culpability rather than medium culpability.
2. Whether the judge was wrong to treat the failure to provide care after death became inevitable as an aggravating factor in sentencing.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The judge incorrectly classified the offence as medium culpability; two of the three factors indicating lower culpability were present: a lapse in an otherwise satisfactory standard of care and a substantial reduction in responsibility due to mental disorder. Therefore, the offence should have been categorised as lower culpability with a lower sentencing range.
• The judge erred in treating the failure to provide care after death became inevitable as an aggravating factor, as the offence was complete once death was inevitable.
• The sentence should have allowed for the possibility of suspension, considering mitigating factors including the impact of imprisonment on the Appellant’s elderly father, who was reliant on his care.

Crown's Arguments

• The judge was best placed to assess culpability having presided over the full trial and was correct to reject the submission that the failure of care was a mere lapse.
• The circumstances demonstrated abandonment rather than a lapse in care, justifying medium culpability classification.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court emphasized the judge’s advantage in having presided over the trial and thus being well placed to assess culpability. The court rejected the Appellant’s submission that the offence was a lapse in otherwise satisfactory care, noting the prolonged abandonment and appalling conditions in which the sister was left. The court found no substantial reduction in responsibility due to mental disorder, as the Appellant had previously cared satisfactorily for his sister despite his own health issues. The court held that none of the factors indicating lower culpability were present, justifying the medium culpability classification.

Regarding the aggravating factor of failure to provide care after death became inevitable, the court reasoned that although the offence was complete in law when death became inevitable, the subsequent failure to take basic steps to alleviate suffering and indignity was relevant to sentencing aggravation. The court rejected the argument that post-inevitability conduct was irrelevant to aggravation or mitigation.

The court concluded that the judge had correctly applied the sentencing guideline, balanced aggravating and mitigating factors appropriately, and justifiably reduced the sentence from the starting point to three years’ imprisonment.

Holding and Implications

The appeal is DISMISSED.

The court upheld the sentence of three years’ imprisonment for manslaughter by gross negligence. The decision confirms that prolonged failure of care leading to death, even where death is inevitable, can justify a medium culpability classification under sentencing guidelines and that post-inevitability conduct may be considered an aggravating factor. No new precedent was established beyond affirming the sentencing judge’s discretion in assessing culpability and aggravation based on trial evidence. The sentence remains binding on the parties, and the Appellant’s custodial term stands without suspension.