Gross negligence manslaughter Flashcards
Elements of gross negligence manslaughter
R v Adamako set out elements
1. Existence of a duty of care owed by D to V
2. Breach of that duty which causes death
3. Gross negligence which jury considers to be criminal
Gross negligence manslaughter AO1
-Can be committed by an act or omission, neither of which have to be unlawful
-Typically involves death following medical treatment or care, death in workplace or death in custody
Tests for gross negligence manslaughter
Test set out in R v Broughton
-Six elements must be proved
1. D owed existing duty of care to V
2. D negligently breached that duty of care
3. At time of breach there was an obvious risk of death
4. Reasonably foreseeable at time of breach that the breach gave rise to serious and obvious risk
5. Breach caused or made significant contribution to death
6. In view of the jury, Breach was so bad, deserves criminal sanction
How to decide if duty is owed
Duty of care is Proved from the three stage test in Caparo v Dickman
Whether duty is owed depends on each case of the fact
R v Kuddus - not aware of allergy so not liable
R v Zaman - Did know and tried to hide it
D created a dangerous situation
Duty of care can exist where D has created a dangerous situation. R v Evans
Breach of duty causing death
Whether there was a breach of duty is a factual matter for jury to decide.
Causation is important must be proved breach of duty caused the death
Gross negligence
Negligence has to be ‘Gross’
At time of breach jury must conclude a reasonable person would have foreseen serious risk of death.
‘Serious’
Meaning of ‘serious’ considered by CoA in R v Rudling
R v Rudling - Serious risk of death is not same as inability to eliminate a possibility.
‘Obvious’
Meaning of ‘obvious’ considered by CoA in R v Rose
R v Rose - mere possibility that an inspection may uncover not same as obvious risk of death
