<Dd> The allegation was not one of mere non-feasance, but of deliberate failure and wilful neglect . This involves an element of culpability which is not restricted to corruption or dishonesty, but which must be of such a degree that the misconduct impugned is calculated to injure the public interest so as to call for condemnation and punishment . </Dd> <P> In the Attorney General's Reference (No 3 of 2003) (2004) EWCA Crim 868 police officers arrested a man with head injuries for a breach of the peace because of his abusive and aggressive behaviour towards the hospital staff who were trying to treat him . He later stopped breathing in the police station and all attempts at resuscitation failed . Five police officers, who were involved in the care of A at the time of his death, were charged with manslaughter by gross negligence and misconduct in a public office . It was held that the latter offence required that a public officer was acting as such, that he wilfully neglected to perform his duty and / or wilfully misconducted himself in a way which amounted to an abuse of the public's trust in the office holder, without reasonable excuse or justification; that whether the misconduct was of a sufficiently serious nature would depend upon the responsibilities of the office and the office holder, the importance of the public objects which they served, the nature and extent of the departure from those responsibilities and the seriousness of the consequences which might follow from the misconduct; that to establish the mens rea (Latin for "guilty mind") of the offence, it had to be proved that the office holder was aware of the duty to act or was subjectively reckless as to the existence of the duty; that the test of recklessness applied both to the question whether in particular circumstances a duty arose at all and to the conduct of the defendant if it did arise; and that the subjective test applied both to reckless indifference to the legality of the act or omission and in relation to the consequences of the act or omission . </P> <P> The general rule is that parents, legal guardians, spouses (see R v Smith (1979) CLR 251 where the wife died after giving birth to a stillborn child, delivered by her husband at home) and anyone who voluntarily agrees to care for another who is dependent because of age, illness or other infirmity, may incur a duty, at least until care can be handed over to someone else . In three cases, the duty was implied: </P> <Ul> <Li> R v Instan (1893) 1 QB 450, Instan lived with her aunt, who was suddenly taken ill and could no longer feed herself or call for help . She was convicted of manslaughter because she neither fed her aunt, nor called for medical help, even though she continued to stay in the house and ate her aunt's food . </Li> <Li> R v Stone & Dobinson (1977) QB 354 . Stone and his mistress agreed to care for his sister who was suffering from anorexia . As her condition deteriorated, she became bed - ridden but no help was summoned and she died . They were convicted of her manslaughter because they had accepted her into their home and so assumed a duty of care for her . </Li> <Li> R v Gibbins & Proctor (1918) 13 Cr App Rep 134 . A father and his lover neglected his child by failing to feed her . The lover had taken on a duty to care for the child when moving into the house and was under an obligation to care for her . </Li> </Ul>

An illegal act committed voluntarily or failure to act when legally required to