gross negligence manslaughter

Question 1

gross negligence manslaughter

Answer 1

where the D is grossly negligent in breach of duty of care towards the V and this results in Vs death

Question 2

3 elements

Answer 2

> they owe C a duty of care, and
they breached this duty
the breach caused reasonably foreseeable injury or damage

Question 3

Adomako established that to prove GNM it must be proved that…

Answer 3

> existence of a DofC by the D towards V
a breach of that duty causes death
gross negligence that the jury considers to be so bad as to be criminal

Question 4

Adomako

Answer 4

hospital doing an operation, an oxygen pipe became disconnected and the patient died. The anaesthetist failed to notice or respond to obvious signs of disconnection

Question 5

R v Broughton ; reinstated 6 elements

Answer 5

1. D owed Dof C to the V
2. D negligently breached that duty
3. at the time of breach their was a serious and obvious risk of death
4. reasonably foreseeable at the time of breach
5. BofD caused or made a significant contribution to death of V
6. view of the jury- circumstance of the breach were exceptionally bad

Question 6

1. existence of a duty of care

Answer 6

> R v Stone and Dobinson
R v singh
R v Litchfield

Question 7

R v Stone and Dobinson

Answer 7

D had undertaken the care of S’s elderly sister. She was unable to care for herself. D failed to feed her or get her medical help, the old lady died.
DofC established as they’d voluntarily agreed to care for her

Question 8

R v Singh

Answer 8

D was a landlord of property which a faulty gas fire caused the death of tenants.
It was recognised that there was a duty on the D to manage and maintain property properly.

Question 9

R v Litchfield

Answer 9

D owned saying ship - he sailed; knowing that the engines might fail because of contamination to the fuel. The ship was blown onto rocks and 3 crew members died. Held that the D owed a duty to the crew

Question 10

Wacker

Answer 10

even if V was party to a criminal act D can still owe a duty
D had agreed to carry illegal immigrants in his lorry across the channel. The air vent enabling them to breathe was closed for the journey.
crossing took an hour longer then expected - 59 immigrants died of suffocation

Question 11

R v Khan and Khan

Answer 11

other situations can lead to a DofC
Ds supplied heroine to V then left her alone
obiter stated duty situations could extend to this

Question 12

there must be a serious and obvious risk of death

Answer 12

if risk is merely of some injury that wouldn’t be fatal, GNM wouldn’t apply.
foreseeability is objectively assessed with respect Ds knowledge at the time

Question 13

R v Rose

Answer 13

routine eye test on a 7yr old boy and negligently examined the back of his eyes. He later died due to swelling of optic nerve which could’ve been observed if the eye test was carried out properly.
‘’ the fact that an examination might reveal serious life threatening problems doesn’t mean that there is a ‘serious and obvious risk of death if such an examination isn’t carried out’’
knowledge at the time - it was a routine eye test

Question 14

2. the breach of duty caused death

Answer 14

duty been shown to exist so it must be proved that D was in breach of that duty and this breached caused death of V
THIS IS MATTER FOR THE JURY
did D negligently do or fail to do something?
general rules of causation apply

Question 15

3. gross negligence

Answer 15

the negligence must be ‘‘gross’’

Question 16

Adomako ‘‘whether… the conduct of the D was..

Answer 16

so bad in all circumstances as to amount to a criminal act or ommission’’
what amounts to gross negligence is for the jury to decide

Question 17

Bateman

Answer 17

negligence must be gross and go beyond a mere matter of compensation between subjects

Question 18

R v Sellu

Answer 18

evidence for the prosecution given by medical experts referred to d having having being ‘‘grossly negligent’’ and ‘‘grossly incompetent’’
Ds conviction was quashed
the rise must be a serious and obvious risk of death, not merely serious injury

Question 19

R v Misra and Srivastava

Answer 19

The V was the Ds patient. V developed an undiagnosed and untreated infection in the wound, despite obvious symptoms. the Jury had to decide if behaviour was grossly negligent, consequently criminal

Question 20

R v Zaman - reasonable foresight

Answer 20

V suffered from a peanut allergy and made the waiter specifically confirm the meal contained no nuts. Sample of food found that it was contaminated to a sufficient level
week later V died - D was charged

Question 21

mens rea

Answer 21

Ds behaviour is judged by the standard of he reasonable man - subjective standard