GNM Flashcards
(12 cards)
What is the definition of Gross Negligence Manslaughter?
Definition - Where person owes duty of care and breaches this by being grossly negligent creating a risk of death, may be guilty of manslaughter if someone dies as a result eg Adomako 1994 three ingredients
What is the actus Reus of Gross Negligence manslaughter?
1) A duty of care must be owed by accused to the victim
2) The duty must be breached
3) Causing death
Describe how a Duty of care must be owed by accused to the victim
Based broadly on civil war, eg Donoghue v Stevenson 1932 there is a duty to not harm anyone who may be affected by your negligence.
Caparo 1990: Civil tests of harm foreseeable, proximity, fair, just and reasonable to impose duty.
Many will be duty situations fixed by law such as
Statutory duties - Litchfield 1997
Doctor: patient Adomako 1994
Landlord: tenant Singh 1999
A contractual duty is not needed for duty of care to exist. Khan & Khan 1998 - Drug supplier not guilty of leaving user alone to die but CA said duty situations could be extended to type of area.
Where D created dangerous situation: Evans 2009 - sister created state of affairs by supplying drug which she knew threatened life and breached duty by failing to get help.
What is the case where master of ship sailed knowing engines might fail. Three crew died when engine failed to ensure gas heater was safe.
Singh 1999.
What is the Confusion between civil law Negligence and Duty of care?
Lord McKay 1994 said ordinary rules of negligence apply to GNM. BUT duty is not exactly same in civil law.
eg Wacker 2002 & Willoughby 2004
What is the case where D agreed to take 60 illegal immigrants to England, closed vent, most died, Conviction of manslaughter upheld in CA, made it clear immigrants could not sue due to being associates in crime.
What is the case where D owned an old disused pub, went into debt and unable to sell pub. Engaged person to help set fire to pub to claim insurance, explosion occurred and killed other person, D convicted for GNM.
1) Wacker 2002
2) Willoughby 2004
Describe how a Duty may be breached
Did D’s conduct fall below that of a reasonable person in the same situation?
Breach can be by act or omission. Contrast with Lowe in Constructive manslaughter.
Rules on duty and omissions apply if conduct is omission. eg Stone & Dobinson 1977
Duty is breached if D did not act as RP/reasonable doctor eg Edwards 2001
Act need not be unlawful it may be lawful act negligently performed eg an operation
Describe how causation applies to Causing death
Broughton 2020
This case demonstrates high test for causation which is required for gross negligence manslaughter.
What ist hec ase where D supplied drugs to gf, didnt do anything ab it, held Jury couldnt be certain that he wouldve stopped her death. NG of GNM.
Broughton 2020.
What is the Mens rea of GNM?
1) D must be grossly negligent eg Adomako 1994, Holloway and Prentice et al (appealed together), Lord McKay: Essence of the matter, which is supremely a Jury question, is whether having regard to the risk of death involved, the conduct of the defendant was so bad in all the circumstances as to amount in their judgement to a criminal act or omission.
Circular unhelpful test, alternatives: R v Cornish 2016 (Jury must consider breach to be so flagrant and atrocious it would consequently amount to a crime)
or Old Bateman 1925 test:
Going beyond a mere matter of compensation OR showing such disregard for life and safety of others as to amount to death dealing punishment.
2) Risk of death
When breaching Duty of Care, Ds conduct must pose reasonably foreseeable serious and obvious risk to death.
What is the checklist of CMS/UAM
1) An Unlawful Criminal act (voluntary)
Act NOT omission Lowe 1973
Unlawful - crime not a civil wrong
Underpinning crime - Assault proved - Larkin 1943
Assault not proved - Lamb 1967
Concept of indirect effect - Mitchell 1983
2) Dangerous Act - Act must be objectively dangerous
Would reasonable person have seen the risk of some physical harm resulting?
Larkin 1943
Concept of Indirect effect - crime need not be aimed at victim who dies eg Mitchell 1983
Physical harm - Fright and shock causing death may be enough, Dawson 1985
3) Factual and legal causation - the unlawful act must have caused the death, Kennedy 2007
Mens rea-
1) Whatever is needed for the underpinning crime (Assault, crim dmg, etc) Lamb 1967
D need not see harm so no mens rea needed for D here
What is the case where:
1) Mr Lowe - low intelligence - did not call doctor for sick child. Child died from dehydration and gross emaciation. Convicted of manslaughter by negligence and wilfuly neglecting a child.
2) Appellant waved razor to frighten Mistress’ lover. Claimed his mistress, drunk, blundered against it and it cut her throat. Conviction upheld, dangerous act so still guilty.
3) Two boys had a gun. Didn’t know it was loaded, and waved it around. D shot V and killed him. Conviction quashed, no intent for assault.
4) A tried to jump queue at Post Office. Elderly man challenged him. A hit old man and pushed him, Old man fell into old lady, who broke her leg and later died. A was convicted and appealed, but it was held that it did not need to be directed at the V.
5) D & V living together. D gave V heroin, who then died due to choking on own vomit whilst under the influence. D convicted and appealed, it was held that as V was a fully informed and consenting adult, this was an intervening act and D therefore had his conviction overturned.
1) Lowe 1973
2) Larkin 1943
3) Lamb 1967
4) Mitchell 1983
5) Kennedy 2007
