Gross Negligence Manslaughter

Question 1

What must be proved

Answer 1

D owes a duty of care and breaches it in a negligent way causing V’s death
Duty of care
Breach of duty
Gross negligence
Risk of death
Causation

Question 2

What is the leading case

Answer 2

(Adamako) which was reinstated in (Broughton 2020)

Question 3

Duty of care

Answer 3

Established through the rules of negligence (Adamako) the neighbour principle in (Donoghue v Stevenson) must be satisfied now updated by (Broughton)
D owes a duty of care to anyone closely and directly affected by their act or omissions (Broughton)

Question 4

What can duty of care be applied to?

Answer 4

Closely or directly affected (Broughton)
Pre-existing duty (Robinson)
Duty via omission
Obvious duty (apply closest pre-existing)
Caparo

Question 5

Tort of negligence

Answer 5

Liability for negligence claimant must show on the balance of probabilities that: D owed him a duty of care, the D breached that duty, and the breach of duty caused the damage or loss.

Question 6

Caparo v Dickman (Caparo Test)

Answer 6

The harm or damage caused is reasonably foreseeable
There is a close proximity between the parties
It is fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care on D

ONLY USE WHEN THERE IS NO PRE EXISTING DUTY

Question 7

Foreseeability

Answer 7

An objective test; the judge must decide whether or not a ‘reasonable man’ would have foreseen the harm that occurred.
(Kent v Griffiths) (Bourhill v Young)

Question 8

Proximity

Answer 8

Closeness of relationship or in time or space
(Bourhill v Young) (McLoughlin v O’Brien)

Question 9

Just, fair, and reasonable

Answer 9

The judge will not impose a duty on D if it is unfair or against the wider interests of society (public policy)
(Mulcahy v MoD) (Capital & Counties PLC v Hampshire CC)

Question 10

Pre-existing Duties

Answer 10

Lawyer/client - (Hall v Simons)
Public body/public - (Clunis v Camden & Islington)
Drivers/other road users - (Nettleship v Weston)
Fire Brigade/public - (Capital & Counties v Hampshire CC)
Doctor/patient - (Whitehouse v Jordan)
Sportsman/sportsman - (Condon v Basi)
Police/public - (Robinson v CC of WYP)
Judiciary/public - (Sirros v Moore)
Employer/employee - (Walker v Northumberland CC)

Question 11

Breach of duty

Answer 11

Can be an act or omission
Court considers what D was expected to do and whether they failed to do so/did this at a poor standard
D judged against standard of a reasonable man doing the same activities as him
If D is a trainee/learner this is taken into account
(Singh)

Question 12

Gross Negligence

Answer 12

‘So bad in all the circumstances as to amount in the jury’s judgement to a criminal act or omission’ (R v Adamako)

Question 13

Risk of death

Answer 13

Clear and obvious risk of death (Misra & Srivastava)
Go ‘beyond a mere matter of compensation between subjects (Bateman)

Question 14

Causation

Answer 14

Factual: ‘but for’ D’s breach of duty, V would not have died (White)
Legal: D’s breach contributed to the V’s death in a more than minimal way/operating and substantial cause of death (Smith)

Intervening acts, TSR