GNM

Question 1

What does the Adamako case set out ? 1

Answer 1

it sets out the ‘ordinary principles of negligence’ apply to GNM so 4 things need to be proven

• D must owe v a duty of care
• D must breach that duty of care and must involve a risk of death and breach must cause v’s death
• d must have been grossly negligent so that his conduct is criminal not civil

Question 2

what is Duty of care and how it is proven? 2

Answer 2

Duty of care can be proven in 2 ways either via the 3 part test in Caparo v Dickman or if D has failed to act through one of the duties to act situations.

Question 3

what are the 5 duty to act and the cases? 3

Answer 3

• Duty to act arising from contract - R v Pittwood
• Duty to act arising from voluntary assumption of responsibility. - R v Stone and Dobinson
• Duty arising out of a public position - R v Dytham
• Duty arising from creating a dangerous situation - R v Milller
• Duty to act arising from a relationship - R v Gibbins & Proctor

Question 4

for volunteering assumption of responsibility what case shows that must be SIGNIFICANT for D to be held responsible for his omission ? 4

Answer 4

R v Evans

Question 5

Breach of duty (involving a risk of death)

what case defined a breach of duty and as what ? 5

Answer 5

Blyth v Birmingham waterworks as either doing something a reasonable man would not do or an omission to do something a reasonable man would do.

Question 6

somethings may increase the standard of care to see if D fell bellow it in the breach what 3 cases are there what do they show ? 6

Answer 6

Nettleship v Weston - inexperience does not lower the standard of care expected
Bolam - being a professional/ expert will increase the standard of care
Mullins v Richards - age can lower the standard of care

Question 7

To help decide if there has been a breach risk factors can be used. what are the risk factors and cases ? 7

Answer 7

Size of risk- how likely is harm to happen? - Miller v Jackson

Seriousness of potential harm- how serious will harm be if it happens? - Paris v SBC

Practicability of precautions- how easily could D have taken precautions to reduce/remove risk? - latimer v AEC

Benefits of taking a risk- what stands to be gained from D taking the risk? - Watt v HCC

Question 8

what is the element to breach of duty and what 2 cases ? 8

Answer 8

Misra confirmed there needs to be a risk of death

Lewis v cps says a reasonable person must foresee this risk

Question 9

Next the breach must be both the factual and legal cause of v’s death what cases do you use for factual causation ?

Answer 9

the but for test - R v Pagett

eg v would not have died but for D using her as a human body shield

Question 10

what cases can you use for legal causation 9

Answer 10

Legal causation requires the use of the ‘operative and sustainable test ‘ as in R v Smith

only break the chain if it it was unreasonable and unforeseeable
- victims own actions - R v Roberts or R v Williams
- Acts of God
- Acts of a 3rd party R v Jordon
thin skull rule - R v Blaue

Question 11

Finally just being negligent will not make D liable for manslaughter his negligence must be considered ‘gross’ by a jury this is the Mens rea of the crime.
what case shows this 10

Answer 11

Adamako establishes a test for the jury to apply ‘ having regard to the risk of death involved , was D’s conduct so bad in all circumstances as to amount to a criminal act or omission? if so this element will be satisfied.
in this section argue both sides pretend to be jury also can finish it with something like ultimately it is for the jury to decide if they consider d ‘s conduct that bad to be criminal.