Gross Negligence Manslaughter

Question 1

What is gross negligence manslaughter

Answer 1

This is where the defendant owes a duty of care to the victim and has acted in a negligent way, leading to loss of life. The negligence must be so bad, it is criminal.

Question 2

Where was GNM defined

Answer 2

R V Broughton

Question 3

What are the 6 elements of GNM

Answer 3

1. Duty of care
2. Breach of duty
3. Serious and obvious risk of death
4. Reasonable foreseeable risk
5. Breach of duty made a more than
   minimal contribution to the death
6. The breach was exceptionally bad
   and was gross negligence and criminal

Question 4

R V Broughton

Answer 4

D gave his girlfriend drugs at a festival. She became violently ill, and filmed her having this obvious overdose. However, he did not get medical help. He was not convicted because the medical help may not have saved her.

Question 5

Mens Rea

Answer 5

The jury must find that the breach were truly exceptionally bad - R V Bateman

Question 6

R V Bateman

Answer 6

D was a doctor who attended a childbirth at the home of the victim. During the birth, part of the uterus came away and D did not send V to hospital. She later died. D’s conviction was quashed as he had conducted normal checks and procedures, so he had not been grossly negligent.

Question 7

Duty of care

Answer 7

A duty of care must exist, such as the duty of a doctor to care for a patient or a teacher to care for a student. These principles are taken from tort law in Caparo V Dickman
- A proximity of relationship
- Reasonable foreseeability of
harm
- It being fair, just and
reasonable to impose a duty of care
If Robinson can be used, then use it!
R V Litchfield

Question 8

R V Litchfield [CONTRACTUAL]

Answer 8

D was the owner and master of a sailing ship. He sailed knowing there was contaminated fuel which might cause the engines to fail. This happened, and the ship was blown onto rocks, killing 3 member of the crew.

Question 9

Duty of care [PARTY TO UNLAWFUL ACT]

Answer 9

In R V Wacker, the victims were party to the illegal act. The judge held this was irrelevant, unlike in civil law where this would void any claim.

Question 10

R V Wacker

Answer 10

D agreed to bring 60 illegal migrants into England in the back of a lorry. The victims suffocated as a vent was closed to prevent detection. 58 migrants died during the channel crossing. The Court of Appeal held that D knew the safety of the migrants depended on his actions, and therefore he assumed a duty of care by being the person transporting them to the country. His conviction was upheld.

Question 11

Breaching the duty

Answer 11

A duty of care can be created where the defendant created a state of affairs which they know, or ought to know, becomes life-threatening. If they fail to act or continue to act to make the situation life-threatening, and there is a death as a result, they have broken that duty. - R V Evans

Question 12

R V Evans

Answer 12

The victim was a heroin addict and her mother and half-sister did not get medical help when she overdosed as a result of the heroin supplied by the half-sister. The half-sister appealed that she did not owe a duty of care to her sister, but the Court of Appeal held that she created a state of affairs in which she ought to have known was threatening to the life of the victim.

Question 13

A serious and obvious risk of death

Answer 13

“Serious” does not mean elimination of possibility, and “obvious” means clear and unambiguous without the need for further investigation. - R V Rose

Question 14

R V Rose

Answer 14

A optometrist examined a boy who later died of a condition related to the eye. It was said “A mere possibility that an assessment might reveal is not the same as obvious.”

Question 15

The risk is reasonably foreseeable

Answer 15

The risk may exist without being foreseen, or without it being reasonable for foresee it. To establish liability, the risk must be reasonably foreseeable. - R V Rudling

Question 16

R V Rudling

Answer 16

A GP suggested that there be a follow-up appointment for a child’s illness a few days later. The child died the following day from a rare condition that was not foreseen, nor was it reasonable to foresee such a rare condition.

Question 17

The negligence is “more than minimal”

Answer 17

The death must be caused by the negligence, and so normal rules of causation apply. However, it must be established that the negligence itself was more than minimal in causing the death. Remember: You must establish ALL the principles or elements to be found liable - R V Broughton

Question 18

R V Broughton [MORE THAN MINIMAL]

Answer 18

This meant the negligence did not cause the death, even if he did owe a duty of care and did breach it.