FO: Gross Negligence Manslaughter Flashcards
(10 cards)
Define GNM
The elements of GNM were set out in Adamako and clarified in R v Broughton. D will be guilty of GNM if they owe a duty of care which is breached in a way that is so bad it is criminal, causing the death of V.
Explain a Duty of care + case example
A duty of care can be established when D owes V a duty of care through one of the six exceptions within omissions. For example creating a dangerous situation,
(Robinson v chief constable of west Yorkshire police)
(R v Evan)
Give examples of Omissions
- Creating a dangerous situation
- Public duty
- Contractual duty
- Special relationship
- Voluntary duty
- statutory Duty
BOD: Ordinary people + case example
Compared to the reasonable man or women on the London underground
BOD: Professionals + case example
Bolam Principle asks would the reasonable competent body of professional opinion have done the same thing if yes then there is no breach in duty.
(R v Adomako - took anaesthetist 9 minutes to realise the tube disconnected led to the patient dying this should have taken them 7 seconds)
BOD: Learners + case example
Compared to the same standard as the reasonable experienced person
(Nettleship v Western)
BOD: Children + case example
Compared to the reasonable child of that age
(Muillins V Richard)
Explain and Obvious and serious risk + case example
An Obvious risk is one that is present, clear and ambiguous. It is immediately apparent, striking and glaring rather than something that might become apparent on further investigation.
(R v Rudling)
Explain reasonable foreseeable + Case example
There must be a reasonable foreseeable obvious and serious risk of death
(R v Kuddas)- Sir Brian Leveson held, If a reasonable person possessed of the knowledge available to the defendant would have foreseen only a chance that the risk of death might arise, that is not enough to justify a conviction for gross negligence manslaughter. What is required is that the reasonable person would have foreseen an obvious and serious risk of death.
Explain Mens rea for GNM
“reprehensible” – R v Misra and Srivastava (2004)
“fell so far below the standards to be expected…[and] was so flagrant and so atrocious that it would consequently amount to a crime” – R v Cornish (2015)
“truly, exceptionally bad” – R v Sellu (2016)
“truly exceptionally bad and so reprehensible as to justify the conclusion that it amounted to gross negligence and required criminal sanction” – R v Broughton (2020)
Although no Mens Rea is required if the risk of death was obvious to a reasonable person, or the D realised this risk himself this will help the jury to decide on the criminality of D’s conduct (Litchfield)
