Gross Negligence Manslaughter

Front 1

Steps to prove Gross Negligence Manslaughter

Back 1

1. The defendant must owe a duty of care to the victim.

2. The defendant must be in breach of this duty of care.

3. The jury must consider the gross negligence to be criminal in nature.

4. The gross negligence must be a substantial cause of the death of the victim.

Front 2

R v Adomako (1994)

Back 2

Defendant was anaesthetist who failed to notice detached tube from patient during operation, who later died. Competent doctor would have noticed within 15 seconds and defendant's actions described as abysmal. Liable for gross negligence manslaughter.

Front 3

What was held in R v Adomako (1994) regarding negligence?

Back 3

Ordinary civil principles apply in criminal law.

Front 4

Negligence

Back 4

An actionable wrong which flows from a breach of duty of care which causes the claimant foreseeable harm or loss.

Front 5

Caparo v Dickman (1990)

Back 5

Established 3 part test to establish duty of care:

1. Foreseeability

2. Proximity

3. Fair, just and reasonableness

Front 6

Foreseeability

Back 6

Reasonable person must have foreseen that some harm would be done.

Front 7

Proximity and case law

Back 7

Closeness in terms of time, space and relationship.

Bourhill v Young (1943)

Front 8

Fair, just and reasonable case law

Back 8

Mulcahy v Ministry of Defence (1996)

Front 9

R v Singh (1999)

Back 9

Recognised duty can be to manage and maintain property.

Front 10

R v Litchfield (1998)

Back 10

Owner and master of a ship have a contractual duty over their crew.

Front 11

R v Wacker (2002)

Back 11

Irrelevant if appellants were parties to a criminal act, a duty of care can still arise. Simple to prove the extent of duty based on the matter of facts.

Front 12

R v Willoughby (2005)

Back 12

Defendant contracted victim to set fire to his disused pub. Victim died in accidental explosion. Held a duty can arise through a number of factors such as the fact the defendant owned the pub, the fact the defendant contracted the victim for his own financial gain, the fact the defendant had created a dangerous situation by their own standards.

Front 13

Blyth v Birmingham Water Works (1856)

Back 13

"Did the defendant fall below the standard of the reasonable man?"

Front 14

Nettleship v Weston (1971)

Back 14

Personal difficulties of the defendant not taken into account.

Front 15

Mullins v Richards (1998)

Back 15

If the case involves children, the standard is lowered to that of a reasonable child.

Front 16

Bolton v Stone (1951)

Back 16

Degree of probability harm will be done.

Front 17

Paris v Stepney Borough Council (1951)

Back 17

Magnitude of likely harm.

Front 18

Latimer v AEC Ltd (1953)

Back 18

Cost and practicality of preventing risk.

Front 19

Daborn v Bath Tramways (1946)

Back 19

Potential benefits of the risk.

Front 20

Bolam v Friern (1957)

Back 20

If case involves professional persons, standard is raised to that of the reasonable professional.

Front 21

Criminal gross negligence

Back 21

The jury must consider the gross negligence to be criminal in nature.

Front 22

R v Bateman (1925)

Back 22

Negligence becomes gross when it "goes beyond a matter of mere compensation between subjects and showed such disregard for life and safety of others as to amount to crime against the state and conduct deserving punishment".

Front 23

Legal point in criminal gross negligence

Back 23

It is a matter for the jury to decide whether having regard to the risk of death involved, the conduct of the defendant was so bad in all circumstances as to amount to, in their judgement, a criminal act or omission.

Front 24

Substantial cause

Back 24

It seems appropriate for there to be a risk of death.

Front 25

R v Misra and Another (2004)

Back 25

The risk must relate to death - it's not enough to show a risk of bodily injury or injury to health.