Background
Hongchi Xiao, a practitioner of a self-healing method called “Paida Lajin” (slapping and stretching), was convicted of gross negligence manslaughter following the death of a workshop participant. The victim, Danielle Carr-Gomm, was a 71-year-old woman with type 1 diabetes who attended Xiao’s week-long workshop in Wiltshire in 2016. Xiao promoted Paida Lajin as an alternative to conventional medicine that could cure diseases like diabetes.
During the workshop, Ms. Carr-Gomm stopped taking her insulin, a decision the prosecution argued was influenced by Xiao. She also participated in a fast as directed by Xiao. Over several days, her health deteriorated significantly as she developed diabetic ketoacidosis. Despite her showing obvious and severe signs of illness, including vomiting and howling in pain, no medical assistance was sought. She died at the workshop venue. The prosecution’s case was that Xiao, as the “Master” of the workshop, had assumed a duty of care for Ms. Carr-Gomm and was grossly negligent in failing to ensure she took her insulin or received urgent medical help.
Before the workshop, all participants, including Ms. Carr-Gomm, signed a “disclaimer” purporting to release Xiao from any liability. The court also heard evidence that Xiao had previously led a workshop in Australia where a 6-year-old boy, also a type 1 diabetic, died in similar circumstances after his insulin was stopped. Following a trial at Winchester Crown Court, a jury convicted Xiao of gross negligence manslaughter.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal dismissed Xiao’s appeal against his conviction. The appeal was based on two primary grounds: that the trial judge misdirected the jury regarding the legal effect of the disclaimer signed by Ms. Carr-Gomm, and that the judge had mis-summarised key witness evidence about when Xiao learned the deceased had stopped taking her insulin.
On the first ground, the court found it “particularly unfortunate” that neither counsel nor the trial judge had considered section 2 of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 (UCTA 1977). This provision makes any contract term that attempts to exclude or restrict liability for death or personal injury resulting from negligence legally ineffective. Therefore, the disclaimer was void and could not absolve Xiao of a duty of care or criminal liability. While the trial judge’s direction to the jury—asking them to consider whether the disclaimer reflected “the reality” of the relationship—was a misdirection, it did not render the conviction unsafe. The waiver was legally irrelevant, and the jury still had to be sure that a duty of care existed based on the facts, which they evidently were.
Regarding the second ground, the court found no material misdirection. The trial judge had initially offered his own recollection of a witness’s testimony but, upon being corrected by counsel, issued a clarifying direction to the jury. He properly instructed them that they were the ultimate arbiters of fact and should rely on their own memory of the evidence. The court concluded that this did not prejudice the appellant, and the conviction was upheld.
Key Takeaways
- A person cannot use a contract term or disclaimer to exclude their liability for causing death or personal injury through negligence. Under the UK’s Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, such waivers are legally void.
- Practitioners of alternative medicine can be found to owe a legal duty of care to participants in their workshops, especially when they position themselves as experts or “masters” and direct the activities of vulnerable individuals.
- Encouraging a person to cease life-saving conventional medical treatment (like insulin for a type 1 diabetic) and then failing to seek medical help when they become critically ill can constitute a breach of the duty of care sufficient for a conviction of gross negligence manslaughter.
Why It Matters
This decision serves as a significant warning to the alternative and complementary medicine industry. It underscores that practitioners cannot hide behind waivers or disclaimers to escape legal responsibility for the health and safety of their clients. The ruling affirms that the law can impose a duty of care on those who offer health-related guidance, even if they lack formal medical qualifications.
The case clarifies that the principles of gross negligence manslaughter apply forcefully in circumstances where “healers” persuade vulnerable people to abandon proven, life-sustaining medical treatments in favour of unproven methods. It reinforces that a failure to act in the face of an obvious and serious risk of death can lead to severe criminal sanctions, regardless of the practitioner’s personal beliefs in their alternative therapies.