GNM (Paper 1) Flashcards
What is Gross Negligence Manslaughter?
A form of involuntary manslaughter, meaning D doesn’t need the MR to kills or cause GBH.
D does not need any MR for crime, their negligence is enough
What happened in (R V Adomako (1994)?
D an anaesthetist for a patient who was having an operation. D failed to notice a tube supplying oxygen was disconnected during operation. C had a heart attack and died from subsequent brain damage
D guilty of GNM
Where D is so negligent that it warrants punishment, then the D will be guilty of GNM
Why was D guilty of GNM in (R v Adomako(1994)?
Where the D is so negligent that it warrants punishment, then the D will be guilty of GNM
In R v Adomako, Lord Mackay said what?
The ordinary principles of negligence in civil law are applied
To prove D guilty of GNM, prosecution must prove what?
1) D owed a duty of care to V
2) D breached that duty
3) D’s breach caused death
4) Negligence is considered ‘gross’
What case highlights that a duty of care is owed to persons who are so closely and directly affected by the D’s acts or omissions?
(Donoghue v Stevenson)
What does (Donoghue v Stevenson) tell us about a duty of care?
That a duty of care is owed to persons who are so closely and directly affected by the D’s acts or omissions
What are some examples of a duty owed?
1) Employment contract (R v Pittwood)
2) Limit harm accidentally caused (R v Miller)
3) Voluntary Assumption (R v stone and Dobinson)
4) Landlord to tenant (R v Singh)
5) Parent to child (R v Edwards)
6) DoC may be created in future to seek medical help (R v Khan and Khan)
What happened in (R v Wacker) (2002) ?
-D agreed to bring 60 illegal immigrants into England. They were put in back of lorry for a ferry, only air was a small vent which they agreed to cover to not be caught. Process took a while and 58 immigrants suffocated and died
-D guilty of UAM
-Criminals can owe a duty of care to other criminals where GNM is considered
Why was D guilty of GNM in R v Wacker (2002) ?
As criminals can owe as duty of care to other criminals where GNM is concerned
What is viewed when seeing if D breached a duty?
1) Objective test- would reasonable person have behaved in the same way as D
If D falls below the standards of the reasonable person, D will be in breach
What is the Objective test?
Would the reasonable person have behaved in the same wat as D?
What happens in (R V Stone and Dobinson (1977)?
-D’s voluntarily assumed care for unwell sister, fell below expected standard and failed to care for her. She died of malnutrition
-Guilty of GNM
-D’s had fallen below the standard of the reasonable person in terms of the care they provided for V
Why were D’s guilty of GNM in (R v Stone and Dobinson(1977)?
As D’s had fallen below the standard of the reasonable person in terms of the care they provided for V
What must we view when seeing if D satisfies causation for GNM?
D’s negligence/breach must be the factual and legal cause of the death
How do we test if D is the factual cause of death?
via the ‘but for’ test (R v White)
How do we test if D is the legal cause of death?
-D must be more than a minimal cause (R v Kimsey)
-If intervening act, chain wont break if D is the substantial and operative cause of death (R v Smith)
What case tells us D must be more than a minimal cause?
(R v Kimsey)
What does (R v Smith) tell us?
If intervening act, chain wont break if D is the substantial and operative cause of death
What happens in (R v Dalloway)?
-D drove his horse+cart without holding on to horse’s reins. A child ran out and D failed to stop the cart. A wheel hit the child ,who died
-D not Guilty of GNM
-‘But for’ D holding on to the reins, the child would have still died
Why was D not guilty of GNM in (R v Dalloway)?
As ‘but for’ D holding on to the reins, the child would have still died
What do we mean when discussing Negligence must be gross?
R v Bateman (1925)- ‘to establish criminal liability the defendant…showed such disregard for the life and safety of other as to amount to a crime against the State and conduct deserving punishment’
What happens in (Andrews v DPP (1937)?
D killed a pedestrian whilst attempting to pass another car by driving on wrong side of the road
Convicted of GNM
Confirmed the Bateman test… A very high degree of negligence for what would be a civil tort to turn into a crime
What happened in (Misra and Srivastava (2004)?
V had a operation, D’s were two doctors responsible for his post-operative infection from which V died
Guilty of GNM
The test for GNM involves the consideration of the risk of death.. For it to pass this final test, the risk of death must be obvious. It is not enough for risk of harm/serious harm
What do we learn from (Misra and Srivastava (2004)? (ratio)
The test or GNM involves the consideration of the risk of death.. For it to pass this final test, the risk of death must be obvious. It is not enough for risk of harm/serious harm
The COA confirmed the Batemen and Misra tests by stating what?
1) At the time of the breach there must be a serious and obvious risk of death
2) The jury must consider that the breach justifies criminal sanction
