GUILTY UK - Jordan Burling, 18, Died Weighing Less Than 6 Stone, Body Of Baby Also Found, Leeds, June 2016

[Tortoise]

It is looking as if the malnutrition started before he became incapacitated. I don't know what physical evidence they would find if he had become say anorexic before his dad saw him in December. He could have been lying to everyone about eating enough, I think that is standard with eating disorders. Use of laxatives is also a sign, although there has been some muddled reporting about whether the pills he was taking were laxatives.

I'm inclined to think that this is where it started, and the family were the only people who could confirm whether he had an eating disorder and what his eating habits were before he gave up normal activity and became bed-bound and perhaps they didn't even know.

It sounds as if there are some complex psychological issues involved too. He is described as being stubborn and I imagine that played a part initially. He may have been physically weak but I suspect he was still in charge of what he wanted vocally, until he was in quite a dire situation. That is the point at which they all failed to deal with it. Dawn seemed to be reluctant to let the paramedics see the state of her hoarding, which is another clue to her inability to handle what was going on in her life for a long time. Hoards don't build up that fast.

 

[Legally Bland]

I'd never thought of laxatives being part of an eating disorder, but that makes perfect sense. (If they were laxatives.)

I've been trying to type out some thoughts on who has a 'duty of care' but it's hard. I guess it's all about dependency.

I think I need to try and find a legal definition.

 

[Tortoise]

I'd never thought of laxatives being part of an eating disorder, but that makes perfect sense. (If they were laxatives.)

I've been trying to type out some thoughts on who has a 'duty of care' but it's hard. I guess it's all about dependency.

I think I need to try and find a legal definition.

I think it could be complicated by the fact he was 18 going on 19. I think that is when they (medics) would have to get an order under the Mental Health Act to treat him in hospital against his will. As for reporting his condition (against his will) once he is an adult I have no idea.

 

[Tortoise]

Trial (Part Heard) - Witness Number 20 Sworn - 14:03
Trial (Part Heard) - No Event - 14:12
Trial (Part Heard) - Witness Number 21 Continues - 14:24
Trial (Part Heard) - Witness evidence concluded - 14:44
Trial (Part Heard) - Witness Number 22 Continues - 14:46

Leeds Crown Court Listings, hearings, cases & details

 

[Tortoise]

It might not be popular, because I certainly see how we might all think that morally a family owes a duty of care to obtain medical care even if it's against the patient's wishes, acting in their best interests, but I'm not sure from a legal standpoint whether it is correct or in anyone's interests to bring criminal charges in this case.

They've defined Jordan as a vulnerable adult, but I don't know where that definition comes from - does it simply attach to all adults refusing treatment? There seems to be confusion amongst professionals even as to whether it is legal to compulsorily admit adults with eating disorders for treatment and force-feed unless they can be sure there is underlying mental illness and get an order to detain under the Mental Health Act, and the charge of "causing or allowing the death of.." seems to require that there be an unlawful act, but I can't find a satisfactory definition of 'unlawful act' that would seem to fit this case - it is omission if anything. So I haven't found anything yet that says definitively there is a legal duty to say call a doctor if someone (an adult) is dying and that you would be breaking the law if you don't. I'm not sure how common sense and moral standards or societal norms translate to legal duty.

This is assuming there was an eating disorder. I think it's a bit far-reaching for the medics to rule out that there was an eating disorder without suggesting another cause of how this came to start, and in the absence of Jordan being physically restrained, imprisoned and denied food. It will certainly be interesting to see how this develops.

 

[Tortoise]

Here are a few links that I've looked at so far

http://www.seedeatingdisorders.org.uk/pdfs/user/F3774357-49CE-5BCB-F9BB-22ECC4C430E5.pdf

Duty of care - Wikipedia

http://www.guildhallchambers.co.uk/files/CausingorAllowingDeathChildorVulnerableAdultRS05.pdf

 

[Tortoise]

Plus...just been thinking here...it would require us to each know when a condition is life threatening, which is assuming we all possess some degree of medical expertise. Pressure sores? Refusing to walk? Wasting away is much more alarming, but did they think they could build him up gradually by feeding him milkshakes?

I would have absolutely no qualms with the prosecution if there was some evidence that he wanted food and was starved, or that they had restrained him. Add in their apparent mental deficiencies and a gap in the narrative about how he went from being slightly overweight to looking ill while he still had freewill and choices, I think that is why I am feeling criminal charges are possibly inappropriate. What if I was living with an adult who was worried they had cancer but wouldn't go to the doctor? It seems comparable. IMO.

 

[Tortoise]

The mother of an emaciated 18-year-old man told a work colleague he had been seen by various doctors and they "couldn't work out what was wrong".

His mother Dawn Cranston (pictured above right), 45, told fellow Poundland employee Laura Thomas her son was "very ill and bed-ridden" earlier the same month, Leeds Crown Court heard.

Yorkshire breaking news: Latest updates

 

[Legally Bland]

I don't think you're being unfair at all, Tortoise. I feel really conflicted on this one.

I've written a couple of posts today and not actually posted them. There were more but I only saved 2. I'll just post them up:
__________________

I'm trying to figure out where 'duty of care' lies.

I think age is a factor but I can't put a specific age on it. I guess my starting point would be 16/18 for a person not to have a duty of care over them.

But then you have developmental delay which would increase the age. And people should have a duty of care for the elderly/infirm.

As I'm typing this, I realise I'm probably thinking about this wrong.

The starting point should be 'dependancy'. Irrespective of age.

________________

This is what I found on 'duty of care':

The leading judicial test for a duty of care in Englandwas found in the judgments of Caparo Industries plc v Dickman,[2] in which the House of Lords set out the following three-part test:

Harm must be a "reasonably foreseeable" result of the defendant's conduct;[3][4][5][6]

A relationship of "proximity" must exist between the defendant and the claimant;

It must be "fair, just and reasonable" to impose liability

Duty of care - Wikipedia

I know it's Wikipedia, but seems fairly reasonable. And I realise this is more focused towards tort/corporate law but I believe the principles to be the same.

It's the proximity I'm having trouble with.

At what point does Jordan's father put enough distance and time between himself and Jordan for him not to have a duty of care?

Do I think Jordan's father should be charged with manslaughter? No.

Do I think his mother should be? She absolutely has a case to answer.

I don't need things in black and white, I know there are grey areas...

...But I'm struggling to see where the lines should be drawn.

And who out of Jordan's mother, grandmother or sister should be held more responsible. I'm leaning towards the mother, but I'm not sure if I'm just being misogynistic. It has to be her, surely?

And I get the feeling that his sister was the only person looking out for him.

Does this give her a greater duty of care? If there's one person I want to be found not guilty on the evidence so far it's the sister. Just because she seemed to care.

I think this is the first case I've followed on WS where I won't pre-empt the verdict.

I'll just hope the jury get it right.

 

[Legally Bland]

And I've reread, it's probably not fair to suggest Jordan's father actively tried to remove his duty of care, I'm not sure of the circumstances.

(If that is how it came across).

 

[Tortoise]

It's the Gran who I think cared the least with her words and wanting his bedroom. With the mum I keep thinking that she couldn't cope, had a mental wall up because of some type of breakdown, but then again she did have a job, so maybe I'm being more lenient than I should be.

The danger is that the jury will hate them so much, because there really is nothing to like about them, that they won't care about the intricacies of the law.

We need to extend tolerance in this case to a whole range of opinions I think LegallyB, while we find our way around with the details. It's easy to make broad brush assumptions without knowing what exactly went on in that house.

 

[beatrixpotter]

How could a doctor possibly rule out an eating disorder after death? Is that even possible? I mean how could you look at someone after death and determine whether they chose to eat or not? Was there anything at all found on him or in the house that indicated anyone tried to keep him from eating?

I find this case very confusing.

 

[Legally Bland]

It's the Gran who I think cared the least with her words and wanting his bedroom. With the mum I keep thinking that she couldn't cope, had a mental wall up because of some type of breakdown, but then again she did have a job, so maybe I'm being more lenient than I should be.

The danger is that the jury will hate them so much, because there really is nothing to like about them, that they won't care about the intricacies of the law.

We need to extend tolerance in this case to a whole range of opinions I think LegallyB, while we find our way around with the details. It's easy to make broad brush assumptions without knowing what exactly went on in that house.

I think you're right. I've gone from hatred to wondering whether these 3 should even be on trial.

I think the Gran definitely showed the most indifference towards Jordan. I'm totally with you there.

But she didn't have the 'proximity' of his parents for the first 4 years of his life when we know he was neglected. Then again they aren't on trial for that timeframe in Jordan's life.

And none of the Gran's babies have turned up deceased in plastic bags.

I keep changing my mind on this, but...

I agree with Tortoise and Bice Potter, I don't see how you can differentiate voluntary malnutrition from involuntary malnutrition in a postmortem.

I have no medical qualifications, just trying to use common sense and I may be missing something (obvious), it wouldn't be the first time.

What I think happened was the family didn't want to own up to Jordan having an eating disorder because they thought it would get them into more trouble for not getting medical assistance.

I don't know how much difference it makes, but I'm not sure they'd be facing manslaughter charges if they'd told the truth (if that was the truth).

I honestly think we're looking at mental incapacity here. I don't want to be unkind to anyone working at Poundland, but is it out of the question?

I've gone from thinking these 3 are the scum of the earth to not being quite so sure.

The dead baby really still bothers me though.

 

[Tortoise]

It's good to hear your thoughts LB.

I really hope the trial is thorough and we get some decent reporting. The media interest seems to be fizzling out and I suppose there's a chance the defendants won't even testify so we won't hear much about their side. I keep thinking this apathy might even stem from the shock or trauma of the grandfather committing suicide in the house.

 

[Tortoise]

We'll be resuming our coverage from mid-morning today. You can follow updates here: Family on trial after dead teen and baby found in Leeds house

LeedsLive News (@leedslivenews) | Twitter

 

[Tortoise]

09:24
Trial to resume this morning
Good morning,

We’ll be back at Leeds Crown Court bringing you live updates from 10.30am.

Scroll back through the blog for details of what’s happened in the trial so far.

It is now the eighth day of a trial that is expected to last five weeks.
Family on trial after dead teen and baby found in Leeds house

 

[Tortoise]

10:25
Support worker to give evidence
The trial has resumed.

We’re hearing evidence from a support worker from school who made a visit to the Burling family home.

Family on trial after dead teen and baby found in Leeds house

 

[Tortoise]

10:28
Learning mentor to Abigail gives evidence
Karen Tiffany is giving evidence - she was based at Ryecroft Primary School in Farnley as a Learning Mentor.

Abigail was a student at the school at the time, but Jordan was still too young.

Family on trial after dead teen and baby found in Leeds house

 

[Tortoise]

10:39KEY EVENT
Day 8: Dawn Cranston tried to close door when support workers arrived
Learning mentor Karen Tiffany made an unannounced home visit with her colleague, Sandra Pearson, shortly before Jordan’s birthday in 2001 due to Abigail’s poor attendance at Ryecroft Primary School.
Sandra had to ‘put her foot in the door’ because Dawn tried to close the door when they arrived.
Karen said she was ‘unaware’ of Jordan’s existence before the visit, but when they arrived:

‘Jordan was on the floor with a nappy on which was really heavy. He was watching TV and crawling round on the floor’.

Family on trial after dead teen and baby found in Leeds house

 

[Tortoise]

10:41
'One of worst houses I'd been into'
Ms Tiffany described the state of the family home at the time:

“The floor had food, including mouldy bread, on it. There was black mould two feet up the walls which gave off an awful smell. It was one of the worst houses I’d been into at the time.”

Family on trial after dead teen and baby found in Leeds house