Gross Negligence Manslaughter Flashcards
Gross Negligence Manslaughter
1) Requires Negligence
2) Results in death
Leading case (R V Broughton 2020)
D attended a festival with his GF
D gave V a class A drug, he increased the dose of the drug
V had a bad reaction to the drugs. Although D stayed with her, he failed to obtain medical assistance
V died
HELD:
D convicted for gross negligence manslaughter due to his failure to seek medical assistance as her condition deteriorated to the point where her life was obviously in danger.
V had a 90% of living if she attained medical assistance
Elements of Gross negligence manslaughter
1) Duty of care
2) Breach of duty
3) Serious and obvious risk of death at time of breach
4) Such risk was reasonably foreseeable at the time of breach
5) Causation
6) Gross negligence
Duty of care (As well as applying it)
R v Adomako
Lord Mackay confirmed the test for duty of care in civil law applies
APPLYING DUTY OF CARE
“Person owes a duty of care to another if it is reasonably foreseeable that they will be injured but the D’s acts or omission” (LORD ATKIN) (Donoghue V Stevenson)
If a duty of Care has already been established, then the elements of duty of care can be applied (Robinson V Chief Constable of West Yorkshire)
No Good Samaritan law
“D does not own the V a duty of care just because D is in a position to help”
However if the d does take action this can be seen as “Assuming a duty of care”
Assuming a duty of care (R V Ruffell)
D promised the V’s mother he would take V inside after a night spent taking drugs and dinking
D failed to do so
V died of hypothermia
HELD:
D had taken on responsibility for V and so had assumed a duty of care
R V Wacker (Duty of care)
D was transporting illegal immigrants into the UK in his lorry. E closed the air vents in the lorry in order to hide them,
58 of the 60 immigrants died from suffocation
HELD:
D had a duty of care even though he was committing a crime
Breach of duty
D’s conduct will be judged against the reasonable competent person doing the same thing
R V Adomako:
D’s conduct feel below the standard of the reasonable competent anaesthetist when he failed to notice the tube becoming disconnected, so he was in breach of duty
R V Wacker:
D’s conduct fell below the standard of a reasonable competent lorry driver, when he closed the vents on the lorry to hide the immigrants, so he was in breach of duty
Serious and obvious risk of death (R v Broughton)
A “serious” risk of death means something more than minimal or remote: a risk of serious injury or illness is not enough
Serious and Obvious risk of death (R V Broughton)
“Obvious” means a risk that is present, clear and unambiguous: it is immediately apparent, striking and glaring as opposed to something that might become apparent on further investigation.
Serious and Obvious risk of death (R v Misra and Srivistava)
Doctor failed to notice the signs of blood poisoning in their patient
What is the 4th element for Gross negligence manslaughter?
Such a risk was reasonably foreseeable at the time of breach
Causation
D’s breach of duty was the factual and legal causation of the death
Factual causation
“But for” D’s breach of duty, V would not have died (R V White)
Legal causation
D’s breach of duty was at “least a substantial contributory cause of death” (R V Broughton)
Gross Negligence
In view of the jury, the circumstances of the breach must be truly exceptionally bad and so reprehensible as to justify the conclusion that it amounted to gross negligence and required criminal sanction
What was gross negligence defined as in the case of R V Adomako and R V Bateman?
“So bad in all circumstances as to amount in the jury’s judgement to a criminal act or omission” (R V Adomako)
“Such disregard for the life and safety of others as to amount to a crime against the state, deserving of punishment” (R V Bateman)
