Gross Negligence Manslaughter

Question 1

Definition

Answer 1

-form of invol manslaughter where the dft is grossly negligent in breach of duty of care towards the victim and this results in the v’s death

Question 2

What does GNM run parallel to and what principles apply?

Answer 2

-Runs parallel to tort of negligence
-ordinary principles of the civil law of negligence apply
-in Adomako (Lord MacKay)

Question 3

Case of Adomako

Answer 3

-D was anaesthetist. In op tube supplying o2 disconnected. Didn’t notice until had a heart attack and died due to brain damage 6mths later
-doctors in trial said that competent anaesthetist would’ve noticed the disconnection within 15 seconds
-Convicted of GNM

Question 4

What are the 4 elements that Adomako established for GNM?

Answer 4

1. The existence of a duty of care by dft towards the V
2. Breach of that duty of care
3. Causes death
4. GN which jury considers so bad to be criminal

Question 5

In what case were the tests restated?

Answer 5

-R v Broughton
-music festival, D supplied drugs to gf who had bad reaction. Remained with her while she deteriorated.
-charged w GN in failing to get medical assistance which was substantial cause of death
-quashed as couldn’t prove she would live if he got medical assistance. Criminal standard of proof.

Question 6

What are the 6 elements to prove for GNM according to Broughton?

Answer 6

1. The dft owed an existing duty of care to the victim
2. The dft negligently breached that duty of care
3. At the time, there was a serious and obvious risk of death.
4. Reasonably foreseeable at the time of the breach that the breach gave rise to serious and obvious risk of death
5. Breach caused or made significant contribution to the death of the victim
6. Jury views circumstances as truly exceptionally bad that it amounted to gross negligence.

Question 7

Case names for 1.existence of a duty of care

Answer 7

-R v Stone and Dobinson
-R v miller
-R v Evans

Contractual
-R v Singh
-R v Litchfield

R v Khan and Khan
R v Wacker

Question 8

R v Stone and Dobinson

Answer 8

-D took care of S’s elderly sister. Bedridden and could care for self. Failed to feed her or get medical help, died.
-duty established as they had voluntarily agreed to care for her

Question 9

R v Miller

Answer 9

-Smoking in bed in hostel. Fire.
-got up and moved to another bed in diff room
-omission to act created dangerous situation

Question 10

R v Evans

Answer 10

-Supplied half sister with heroin and sister injected in front of her. Clear that she was suffering an overdose, D did not get medical help as didn’t want to be revealed.
-looked after her for a couple hours, left
-dead in the morning
-convicted GNM
-omission to act caused dangerous act

Question 11

Contractual: R v Singh

Answer 11

-D landlord of property where faulty gas fire caused death of tenants
-recognised duty on the dft to manage and maintain the property
-Duty of care to tenants owed by landlord

Question 12

Contractual: R v Litchfield

Answer 12

-D owner of sailing ship. Sailed knowing engines may fail because of fuel contamination
-blown onto rocks and 3 members died
-D owed duty of care to the crew

Question 13

R v Khan and Khan

Answer 13

-D supplied heroin to v and left alone. Died and their conviction for UAM quashed, COA stated orbiter that duty situations could be extended to this

Question 14

Wacker

Answer 14

-D brought 60 illegal immigrants into England, in back of lorry for cross channel ferry
-only air through small vent, agreed to close at certain times to prevent them being discovered
-closed before boarding, crossing took hour longer, 58 immigrants dead
-COA said that the safety of the immigrants relied on his own actions
-assumed duty of care

Question 15

2. Explain breach

Answer 15

….

Question 16

3. There must be a serious and obvious risk of death

Answer 16

-if merely of some injury that’s not fatal then GNM wouldn’t apply
-must be reasonably foreseeable that breach gave rise to serious and obvious risk of death
-objectively assessed - D’s knowledge at the time

Question 17

Case for 3. Serious and obvious risk of death

Answer 17

R v Rose
-Optometrist, routine eye test on 7 yr old.negligently failed to look at back of eye, obliged to by statutory duty of care, died due to swelling of optic nerve, would’ve seen and could’ve treated
-Knowledge at the time was routine eye test, doesn’t indicate reasonably foreseeable serious and obvious risk of death. Only possibility

Question 18

3. What do serious and obvious mean in this context?

Answer 18

-serious: nature of the risk. More than min or remote. Risk injury or serious injury not enough
-obvious: present clear and unambiguous. Striking, glaring

Question 19

5. The breach caused the death

Answer 19

-for jury to decide whether D breached and if this breach caused the death
- did they negligently do or fail to do something
-must be proved that the breach caused the death
EXPLAIN CAUSATION
-factual - but for, white and Padgett
-legal - more than minimal, op and substantial, Kimsey and smith
-intervening acts etc

Question 20

6. Grossly negligent

Answer 20

-Fact they have been negligent not enough, need to be grossly negligent
-how gross to be criminal? - Adomako, whether the conduct of the dft was so bad in all the circumstances as to amount to a criminal act or omission
-for the jury to decide

Question 21

Case for 6. Grossly negligent

Answer 21

-R v Sellu
-evidence for prosecution given by medical experts referred to d being ‘grossly negligent’ and ‘grossly incompetent’, had impact on jury. Conviction quashed.

Question 22

Men’s rea for GNM

Answer 22

-D’s behaviour judged by the standards of a reasonable man - objective test

Question 23

Extra cases

Answer 23

• R v Bateman
  -R v Kuddus
  -R v Willoughby

Question 24

R v Bateman

Answer 24

• Doctor convicted of MS due to treatment of woman in childbirth. Opinion of jury for negligence going beyond compensation

Question 25

R v Kuddus

Answer 25

• restaurant owner could only owe a duty of care about allergies of the customer that he knew about

Question 26

R v Willoughby

Answer 26

-Set fire to own pub to claim insurance, V helped, explosion, building collapsed and V died. Convicted GNM, was a duty of care.