Gross negligence manslaughter Flashcards
involuntary manslaughter
Definition of involuntary manslaughter
unlawful killing where D did not have the intention to kill or cause GBH
Definition of Gross negligence manslaughter
form of involuntary manslaughter where D is grossly negligent in breach of a Duty of care towards the V, resulting in the V’s death
Elements of GNM
established in the case of Adomacko:
1. existence of a DofC
2. Breach of duty
3. breach caused the death
4. breach so gross that jury consider it criminal
elements reinstated in R V Broughton:
1. duty of care
2. breach of duty
3. serious and obvious risk of death
4. risk was reasonably foreseeable
5. causation
6. gross negligence amounting to criminal
Existence of a Duty of care
Duty arising from Act of Parliament
e.g. failing to stop under Road Traffics Act 1988
Duty because of relationship
R v Gibbins and Proctor - (neglected one of several children)
Voluntary Duty
R V Stone and Dobinson - (volunteered to look after Stones’s elderly sister, died of malnutrition)
Contractual Duty
R V Singh - (DofC for landlord to maintain property, faulty gas caused fire causing death of tenants)
Public Duty
R V Dytham - (police man didn’t intervene in fight, V kicked to death)
Duty because D set in motion chain of events
R V Miller - (cig lit mattress on fire, moved to diff room, convicted of arson)
Duty to act
R V wacker - illegal immigrants in van case, had duty to open the vent, 60 died as a result of failure
- Breach of Duty
breach must have caused the death, a matter for the jury to decide
3/4. serious and obvious risk of death/reasonably foreseeable
risk of some injury is not enough from GNM
must give rise to SERIOUS and OBVIOUS risk of death
R V Rose
R V Rose
optition carried out eye test on 7yr old boy negligently failed to examine back of eye as obliged by her statutory DofC, died from swelling of optic nerve
BUT appeal allowed as from her knowledge it was a routine eye test = didn’t indicate a reasonably foreseeable risk of death
- Causation
general rules apply:
factual
legal
intervening act
thin skull rule
- Gross negligence amounting to criminal
Negligence has to be GROSS - for the jury to decide
Lord McKay in case of Adomacko:
“the conduct of D so bad in all circumstances as to amount to a criminal act or omission”
R V Sellu - evidence used by prosecution given by medical experts referring D to have been “grossly negligent” and “grossly incompetent” -conviction qushed as it was up to JURY to decide, not what the experts thought
R V Sellu
For the Jury to decide as to what amounts to gross
evidence used by prosecution given by medical experts referring D to have been “grossly negligent” and “grossly incompetent” -conviction qushed as it was up to JURY to decide, not what the experts thought
Mens Rea for GNM
D’d behaviour is judged by the standard of the reasonable man - an objective standard
