Court of Appeal upholds Hongchi Xiao's gross negligence manslaughter conviction

The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal against conviction brought by Hongchi Xiao, the self-styled "Master" behind the Paida Lajin healing method, over the death of Danielle Carr-Gomm, a 71-year-old type 1 diabetic who died from diabetic ketoacidosis during a week-long workshop at Cleeve House in Wiltshire in October 2016.

In Hongchi Xiao v R [2026] EWCA Crim 957, Lord Justice Dingemans, sitting with Mr Justice Murray and HH Judge Andrew Lees, upheld Xiao's conviction for gross negligence manslaughter following a trial at Winchester Crown Court before Bright J, at which a jury convicted him by a majority in July 2024. He was sentenced to an extended determinate sentence of 15 years, comprising a 10 year custodial term and a five year extension period.

Ms Carr-Gomm had turned to Paida Lajin, a self-healing method involving slapping, stretching and fasting, after seeking alternatives to insulin injections. Xiao, who held no medical qualifications, had claimed the technique was safer than conventional treatment and could achieve significant improvement or full recovery in 90 per cent of cases, including diabetes. During the Cleeve House workshop, Ms Carr-Gomm stopped taking her insulin entirely and, as her condition deteriorated over several days, was not given medical assistance before she died. The court also heard evidence relating to a separate case in Australia, where a six-year-old boy died after his parents stopped administering his insulin following a workshop led by Xiao, for which Xiao was later convicted of manslaughter.

All participants at Cleeve House had signed a disclaimer purporting to discharge Xiao from liability arising from the workshop. The trial judge directed the jury that this document, while not decisive, was relevant to whether Xiao owed Ms Carr-Gomm a duty of care, and separately suggested in his summing up that Ms Carr-Gomm and Xiao both knew the disclaimer's contents did not reflect reality. Neither counsel nor the judge had drawn attention during the trial to section 2 of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, which prevents any contract term or notice from excluding liability for death or personal injury caused by negligence.

The Court of Appeal agreed that this omission led to a misdirection, since the judge had told jurors the document "might well be decisive" in a civil dispute, when in fact section 2 would have rendered it wholly ineffective regardless of context. However, the court found this misdirection did not assist Xiao, since jurors had still been correctly told the document could not absolve him of criminal liability. The court also rejected arguments that the judge's further comments on the disclaimer during his summing up were unfair, finding they merely reflected the reality that the document could not have meant what it purported to say.

A second ground concerned the judge's handling of evidence from a witness, Jannine Stoodley, about when Ms Carr-Gomm first disclosed she had stopped taking insulin, an issue complicated by the absence of a trial transcript due to recording problems. The judge had initially given his own impression of the evidence before recalling the jury to clarify the position by reference to counsel's agreed notes. The Court of Appeal held that the judge had acted properly throughout, repeatedly reminding jurors that questions of fact were for them alone to determine.

Having dismissed the appeal, the court confirmed that no retrial would be required, and accordingly discharged a reporting restriction order that had been in place under the Contempt of Court Act 1981 pending the outcome.