Gross negligence manslaughter

Question 1

Definition of involuntary manslaughter

Answer 1

unlawful killing where D did not have the intention to kill or cause GBH

Question 2

Definition of Gross negligence manslaughter

Answer 2

form of involuntary manslaughter where D is grossly negligent in breach of a Duty of care towards the V, resulting in the V’s death

Question 3

Elements of GNM

Answer 3

established in the case of Adomacko:
1. existence of a DofC
2. Breach of duty
3. breach caused the death
4. breach so gross that jury consider it criminal

elements reinstated in R V Broughton:
1. duty of care
2. breach of duty
3. serious and obvious risk of death
4. risk was reasonably foreseeable
5. causation
6. gross negligence amounting to criminal

Question 4

Existence of a Duty of care

Answer 4

Duty arising from Act of Parliament
e.g. failing to stop under Road Traffics Act 1988

Duty because of relationship
R v Gibbins and Proctor - (neglected one of several children)

Voluntary Duty
R V Stone and Dobinson - (volunteered to look after Stones’s elderly sister, died of malnutrition)

Contractual Duty
R V Singh - (DofC for landlord to maintain property, faulty gas caused fire causing death of tenants)

Public Duty
R V Dytham - (police man didn’t intervene in fight, V kicked to death)

Duty because D set in motion chain of events
R V Miller - (cig lit mattress on fire, moved to diff room, convicted of arson)

Duty to act
R V wacker - illegal immigrants in van case, had duty to open the vent, 60 died as a result of failure

Question 5

2. Breach of Duty

Answer 5

breach must have caused the death, a matter for the jury to decide

Question 6

3/4. serious and obvious risk of death/reasonably foreseeable

Answer 6

risk of some injury is not enough from GNM
must give rise to SERIOUS and OBVIOUS risk of death

R V Rose

Question 7

R V Rose

Answer 7

optition carried out eye test on 7yr old boy negligently failed to examine back of eye as obliged by her statutory DofC, died from swelling of optic nerve
BUT appeal allowed as from her knowledge it was a routine eye test = didn’t indicate a reasonably foreseeable risk of death

Question 8

5. Causation

Answer 8

general rules apply:
factual
legal
intervening act
thin skull rule

Question 9

6. Gross negligence amounting to criminal

Answer 9

Negligence has to be GROSS - for the jury to decide

Lord McKay in case of Adomacko:
“the conduct of D so bad in all circumstances as to amount to a criminal act or omission”

R V Sellu - evidence used by prosecution given by medical experts referring D to have been “grossly negligent” and “grossly incompetent” -conviction qushed as it was up to JURY to decide, not what the experts thought

Question 10

R V Sellu

Answer 10

For the Jury to decide as to what amounts to gross

evidence used by prosecution given by medical experts referring D to have been “grossly negligent” and “grossly incompetent” -conviction qushed as it was up to JURY to decide, not what the experts thought

Question 11

Mens Rea for GNM

Answer 11

D’d behaviour is judged by the standard of the reasonable man - an objective standard