GDL - Unlawful Act/Gross Negligence Manslaughter Flashcards
(12 cards)
objective test for “dangerous act” (UAM)
depends not on the accused’s appreciation of the likely harm, but on what the sober and reasonable person would appreciate
type of harm likely to result from the unlawful act must be what kind of harm?
physical and not emotional harm (R v Dawson)
What is the test for whether the unlawful act was dangerous for the purposes of unlawful act manslaughter?
Sober and reasonable people would inevitably recognise must subject the other person to, at least, the risk of some harm, albeit not serious harm
threshold for negligence in gross negligence manslaughter
The defendant’s negligence must have showed ‘such disregard for the life and safety of others as to amount to a crime against the State and conduct deserving punishment’
R v Singh, threshold for risk of death in GNM
there must ‘be an obvious and serious risk, not merely of injury or even serious injury, but of death’
an obvious risk
a present risk which was clear and unambiguous, not one which might become apparent on further investigation
how to direct a jury as to criminal gross negligence vs civil negligence
criminal gross negligence is ‘so bad, so obviously wrong, that it can be properly condemned as criminal’
Does gross negligence require proof of any particular state of mind?
No
Can a single devastating act be grossly negligent?
Yes (Adomako)
When might it be easier for the jury to find gross negligence?
Where the defendant is responsible for a series of acts/omissions rather than a single event
When might a finding of gross negligence be less likely?
Where the defendant’s mistakes are themselves in part or in whole brought about by mistakes of others (R v Prentice & Sullman)
Is the defendant’s knowledge/experience relevant for determining gross negligence?
Yes, If the defendant has knowledge/experience that should alert them to the danger, this may be a helpful fact for the jury to take into account
