Gross Negligence Manslaughter Flashcards
What is involuntary manslaughter due to gross negligence?
D may be liable for gross negligence manslaughter if five elements are satisfied, as established in Adomako and confirmed in Broughton (2020).
What is the first element of gross negligence manslaughter?
The defendant must have owed a duty of care, as established in Singh.
When does a duty of care apply?
A duty of care applies wherever D’s conduct carries a foreseeable risk to those around them, as determined by the jury (Willoughby).
What are some established relationships that create a duty of care?
Examples include doctor-patient (Adomako), landlord-tenant (Singh), and employer-employee.
Can a duty of care be owed during criminal activity?
Yes, a duty of care can be owed even when both the defendant and victim are engaged in criminal activity, as seen in Wacker.
What is an omission in the context of duty of care?
An omission refers to a failure to act when there was a duty to act, such as in Stone and Dobinson, Gibbons and Proctor, and Miller.
What is the second element of gross negligence manslaughter?
The defendant must have breached the duty owed by falling below the reasonable person standard of care test set out in Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks.
What is an example of breaching the reasonable person standard?
D fell below the standard of the reasonable driver when he was texting, creating a high risk of harm to V, who is a child.
What is the third element of gross negligence manslaughter?
The breach of duty must cause the death.
What is the test for factual causation?
The test for factual causation is the ‘but for’ test, where harm would not have occurred but for the defendant’s actions (White, Pagett, Hughes).
What is the test for legal causation?
The test for legal causation is whether the defendant is the operating and substantial cause of death (Smith, Pagett).
What is an example of factual and legal causation?
D was the factual cause of V’s death as but for D texting, V would not have died. D hitting V was the legal cause as it was the operating and substantial cause of death.
What can break the chain of causation?
A novus actus interveniens (intervening act) can break the chain of causation if it was not reasonably foreseeable.
What does Cirl concern regarding the victim’s own act?
Cirl involves whether the victim’s actions break the chain of causation. If the victim’s response to the defendant’s actions is unforeseeable, it will break the chain; if it is foreseeable, it will not break the chain.
What does Pagett concern regarding a third party act?
Pagett addresses whether a third party’s actions break the chain of causation. If the third party’s actions are unforeseeable, it will break the chain; if they are foreseeable, it will not break the chain.
How does medical negligence affect the chain of causation?
Medical negligence usually does not break the chain of causation unless it is considered very serious or ‘palpably wrong’.
What is the significance of the thin skull rule?
Under the thin skull rule, the defendant must take their victim as they find them, meaning they cannot blame the victim for an extreme reaction if the victim has a hidden weakness.
What must be established for a serious and obvious risk of death?
There must be a serious and obvious risk of death, and death must result from the defendant’s actions.
What constitutes gross negligence?
Gross negligence is defined as conduct that shows such disregard for the life and safety of others that it amounts to a crime in the eyes of the jury.
What guidance must a judge provide regarding gross negligence?
The judge must give some guidance to the jury on what constitutes gross negligence.
What conclusion can be drawn about the defendant’s guilt?
If the defendant’s conduct is found to be grossly negligent, they may be found guilty.
