1B - Involuntary Manslaughter - Gross Negligence Manslaughter

Question 1

What is the leading case of GNM?

Answer 1

Adomako

Question 2

What is the first step of proving GNM?

Answer 2

That there is a duty of care

Question 3

What is the second step of proving GNM?

Answer 3

There was a breach of duty of care - negligent manner

Question 4

What is the third step of proving GNM?

Answer 4

It caused the death of another

Question 5

What is the fourth step of proving GNM?

Answer 5

There was a risk of death

Question 6

What is the fifth step of proving GNM?

Answer 6

That the negligence is gross (ie. serious enough to be criminally liable)

Question 7

Step 1. Duty of care

Answer 7

• Lord Mackay
• Three-stage test from Caparo v Dickman
• Established the neighbour principle in Donoghue v Stevenson. It also established that manufacturers owed a duty of care to a consumer
  The neighbour principle says ‘you must take reasonable care not to injure your neighbour’. A neighbour is anyone closely and directly affected by your actions

Question 8

Step 2. Breach of duty of care

Answer 8

• ie. they haven’t met the standard of care owed
• Usual rules of negligence apply
• objective standard
• meet the standard of the reasonable person in the same situation/doing the same activity - Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks
• lower standard for children - Mullin v Richards
• higher standard if expert/professional - Bolam
• learners/inexperienced judged by the standard of the competent person performing the same task - Nettleship v Weston
• can be an act or omission (if its a duty situation)

Question 9

Step 3. Causing the death of another

Answer 9

• the breach must cause death
• factual causation - ‘but for’ test - Pagett
• legal causation - de minimis principle - Kimsey
• intervening acts
  a. V’s own actions - Roberts
  b. medical treatment - Smith/Jordan
  c. thin skull rule - Blaue

Question 10

Step 4. Risk of death

Answer 10

• Adamako
• Bateman
• Stone and Dobinson
  Given the seriousness of the charge, fair that the test should be as stated in Adamako
  Finally settled in Misra & Srivastara must be an objective test of death and not just harm. The reasonable person would foresee a risk of death and not just some harm from the D’s actions/failure to act

Question 11

Step 5. Gross negligence

Answer 11

Bateman: set the test. It’s for the jury to decide if the conduct is to be judges as criminal

• Negligence must be ‘gross’ and beyond a mere matter of compensation between subjects
• HOL approved Bateman in Adomako