Gross Negligence Manslaughter Flashcards
What is the definition of gross negligence manslaughter?
A form of involuntary manslaughter where the defendant is grossly negligent in breaching their care towards the victim, and this results in the victim’s death.
What does the case Adomako (1994) establish?
The elements for a gross negligence manslaughter conviction.
What are the case facts in Adomako (1994)?
The defendant was an anaesthetist. During an operation, one of the tubes supplying oxygen to the patient became disconnected. The defendant failed to notice this until some minutes later when the patient suffered a heart attack caused by the lack of oxygen. The patient suffered brain damage and died 6 months later as a result.
Doctors giving evidence in the trial said that a competent anaesthetist would have noticed the disconnection of the tube within 15 seconds and the defendant’s failure to act was ‘abysmal’. The trial judge directed the jury on gross negligence manslaughter.
What are the elements for a gross negligence manslaughter conviction?
- D owes a duty of care to the victim.
- D breaches that duty.
- There was a risk of death and death was caused (the risk was reasonably foreseeable .
- The breach was so grossly negligent as to be criminal in the eyes of the jury.
What are the case facts in R v Broughton (2020)?
24-yr-old Louella died at Bestival after taking a class-A drug supplied by her boyfriend. He had filmed her reaction to the drug but did not call for help and was convicted of her death by way of gross negligence manslaughter by the trial court. It was seen that he owed her a duty of care in the circumstances and failed to obtain medical assistance in a timely manner.
Expert evidence stated that Louella would have had a 90% chance of survival if medical intervention had been provided. Therefore this did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that she would have lived if Mr Broughton had called for assistance.
Based on causation -> can’t be uncertainty.
What are the case facts in R v Stone and Dobinson (1977)?
The defendants had undertaken the care of her elderly sister. She became bedridden and unable to care for herself. As a result of D’s failure to feed her or get medical help the old lady died.
Duty of care was established as they had voluntarily agreed to care for her.
What does the case R v Stone and Dobinson (1977) establish?
The existence of duty of care.
What are the case facts in R v Miller (1983)?
D was smoking in bed while staying in a hostel. This caused a fire. He just got up and moved to another bed in a different room.
It was his omission (failure) to act that created a dangerous situation.
What are the case facts in R v Evans (2009)?
D supplied her half sister with heroin and the half sister self-injected in front of her. When it was clear that the half sister was suffering from an overdose D didn’t summon medical help because she didn’t want the supply revealed. She looked after her for a couple of hours and then left. In the morning, the half sister was dead. D was convicted of GNM.
What cases show a contractual duty of care?
R v Singh (1999) and R v Litchfield (1997).
What are the case facts in R v Singh (1999)?
D was the landlord of a property in which a faulty gas system caused a fire which then caused the deaths of tenants.
It was recognised that there was a duty on D to manage and maintain property properly.
What are the case facts in R v Litchfield (1997)?
D was the owner and master of a sailing ship. He sailed knowing that the engines might fail because of contamination to the fuel. The ship was blown onto rocks and three crew members died.
It was held that D held a duty to the crew.
What are the case facts in R v Wacker (2002)?
D agreed to bring 60 illegal immigrants into England. They were put into his lorry for a cross-channel ferry crossing. The only air into the lorry was through a small vent which had to be closed at times - to prevent the immigrants from being discovered. The crossing took longer than usual and the Dover customs officer found 58 of them dead at the border.
D’s conviction for manslaughter was upheld by the COA. D argued that it was impossible to determine the extent to his duty, but it could be determined based on the facts. D knew that the safety of the immigrants depended on his own actions in relation to the vent and he clearly assumed the duty of care.
Serious and obvious risk of death:
If the risk was merely of some injury that would not be fatal, GNM would not apply.
It must be reasonably foreseeable that the breach of duty gave rise to a serious and obvious risk of death.
Foreseeability is objectively assessed which respect to D’s knowledge at the time.
What are the case facts in R v Rose (2017)?
The defendant was an optometrist. They had carried out a routine eye test on a 7 year old boy. She negligently failed to examine the back of his eyes as she was obliged to do by reason of her statutory duty of care. He later died due to a swelling of the optic nerve which would have been observed had D carried out a proper examination. The condition was treatable. D’s appeal was allowed
Rose’s knowledge at the time was that this was a routine eye test. This would not indicate a reasonably foreseeable serious and obvious risk of death, it is merely a possibility.
