gross negligence manslaughter Flashcards
what is Gross negligence manslaughter
What it is where the death is a result of a grossly negligent(though otherwise lawful) act or omission on the part of the defendant
what invol manslaughter (MR AR)
you have the guilty act but not the guilty mind no intention.
what happen in R v Adomako 1995
D was an anaesthetist who failed to observe what was happening during an operation, including the fact that a tube became detached from the ventilator. The patient suffered a cardiac arrest.the jury convicted him of gross negligence manslaughter
what are the elements of GNM
Actus reus
D owes a duty of care to v
D has breached that duty
Reasonable foresight that the breach involves a risk of death -confirmed in Mirsa
facts of R v Broughton 2020
v died at the Bestival music festival having taken 2-CP,class-A drug, supplied by her boyfriend , the appellant.the prosecution care was that having supplied the drug and remained with he, the appellant owed louella a duty of care to secure medical assistance as her condition was deteriorated to the point where her life was in obviously in danger. He was said to have been negligent in failing to obtain timely medical assistance, which was the substantial cause of her death.
held for R v Broughton 2020
The sole evidence relating to causation came from professor Deakin, a prosecution expert witness. His evidence was that had Louella received medical assistance prior to 9:10 pm there was a 90% chance that she would have survived.in overturning the appellant conviction on appeal. The prosecution’s evidence could not, said the court, prove to the criminal standard that with medical intervention as soon as after louella’s condition was presented,she would of survived.
when has duty of care has been held
has been held exist for purposes of criminal law in various situations
what case help made the neighbour principle
Donoghue v Stevenson 1932
what happen in Donoghue v Stevenson 1932
some one that someone you interacted with anyone which owe each other duty of care.
examples of duty of care
A parent and their children
A teacher and their students
what is the first step of the Broughton GNM
The existence of duty of care to the deceased;
case link to the first step of broughton GNM
r v evans
what is the second step of broughton GNM
breach of that duty of care
cases links to the second step of broughton
R v stone and dobinson
R v miller
R v gibbins and proctor
R v dytham
what is the third step of broughton GNM
Reasonable foresight that the breach involves a risk of death
the four step of broughton GNM
Cause (or significantly contributes) to death of the victim
what is the fifth step of broughton GNM
The breach should be characterised as gross negligence, and therefore a crime.
what is the sixth step of broughton GNM
breach were truly exceptionally bad and so reprehensible as to justify the conclusion that it amounted to gross negligence
what did lord Atkin about the neighbout test
Persons who are so closely and directly affected by me and I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are called in question.
facts of R v Singh 1999
D was a landlord of a V lived who died of carbon monoxide poisoning caused by the gas boiler.D owed V duty of care through tenancy agreement which D breached with sufficient information about dangers of defective gas boiler
held for R v Singh 1999
took no action which makes D guilty of gross negligence manslaughter
facts of R v Dean 2002
D was a company director who was convicted in april 2002 of two counts of manslaughter.he was sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment for each offence. D had been contracted to demolish a kiln. Two of his employees were killed during the work. It was agreed that the only safe way to demolish the kiln was to remove the bricks first and then to cut the steel skeleton. The deceased employees cut the skeleton before removing the bricks and the vast areas of unsupported brickwork fell on them
held for R v Dean 2002
The trial judge told the jury that it could have convicted D of manslaughter if it was satisfied that he had failed to warn the deceased of the dangers of removing the skeleton before removing the brick.
what type of test is the reasonable man test
objective but it does not hold all people to the same standard. It would not be fair to hold a 10 year old to the same standards you would of a 30 year old
what is case link to standard of care learner drivers
nettleship v weston 1971
what happen in nettleship v weston 1971
(court of appeal) a learner driver is expected to meet the same standard of a qualified learner driver.
facts of Mullin v richards 1998 (court of appeal)
2 15 year old were fighting with rulers and one of rulers snapped and a splinter went into one of the girls eyes causing blindness. The girl brought an action against the other negligent action.
held for Mullin v richards 1998 (court of appeal)
the girl was only expected to meet the standard of a 15 year old not a reasonable man she was not found not to be in breach of duty.
facts of Bolam v Friern Hospital management 1957
the claimant was undergoing electroconvulsive therapy as treatment for his mental health.the doctor didn’t give any relaxant drug and the claimant suffered a serious facture.
held for bolam v friern hospital management 1957
there was divided opinions between professionals as whether or not to give relaxant drugs to the claimant. If given there was a small risk of death and if not given there was a small risk of fractures.the claimant argued that the doctor was in breach of duty by not using a relaxant drug.
what is meant with injuries in GNM
in this context qualifies the nature of the risk of death as something much more than minimal or remote.however, risk of injury or illness, even serious injury or illness is not enough.
what is an obvious risk
is one that is present, clear, and unambiguous. It is immediately apparent, striking and glaring rather than something that might become apparent on further investigation.
what cases links to reasonable foresight
r v rose 2017
r v rudling 2016
facts of R v Rose 2017
D was an optometrist who was convicted for GNM.D carried out a routine eye test on seven year old,Vincent(V).but she negligently failed to examine the back if Vincent’s eyes as she was required to do by reason of her statutory duty of care. Five months later, V became ill and died son after.the initial cause was a swelling of the optic nerve. This would have been obversed had D carried out a proper examination and treatable
held for r v rose 2017
D appealed and her conviction was quashed.held:in allowing appeal,
what did Leveson LJ stated in r v rose 2017
‘the fact that an examination might reveal serious life-threatening problems does not mean that there is a ‘serious and obvious risk of death’ if such an examination is not carried out.
facts of R v Rudling 2016
GP(D) did not undertake a Friday afternoon home visit of a boy (V) whose mother reported a range of symptoms; D instead of suggesting that V attend the surgery on Monday morning.V sadly died on Saturday morning of a cute Addison disease. An expert report seen by the Crown Court suggested that D should have seen V to obtain’ global sense’ of his condition as a matter of risk management.
held for r v rudling 2016
the Court of Appeal, ultimately concluded, while the lack of examination of V was serious, the information available to D at the time was not enough for her to consider that the situation was life-threatening, and she was acquitted.
what is the rule of causation
“negligence must have caused the death in the sense that it more than minimally, negligible or trivially contributed to death”
case link to causation for GNM
Dalloway 1847
what was the negligence in dalloway 1847
it was omission
what the conduct of D that lord Mackay said
the conduct of D was so bad in all the circumstances as to amount, in their judgement to a criminal act or omission.
what the jury must consider for GNM
the seriousness of the breach of duty in al circumstances in which D was placed at the time.
what is the conduct in gross for gnm 2005
conduct that was so gross it can be characterised as a crime
what must the jury decide in Gross for GNM 2005
decide whether the defendant’s conduct was so bad, in all the circumstances, as to amount to a criminal act other omissions.
what happen in R v Misra and Srivastava 2005
the court agreed with the direction by the judge that the term ‘ reprehensible’ would be apt to describe the nature of conduct.
what was the 2020 develop in the view of the jury
circumstances of the breach were truly bad and so reprehensible as to justify the conclusion that it amounted to GN and required criminal sanction.
what was stated about R v Cornish
so flagrant and atrocious, it would consequently to a crime.
what did the jury decide for R v Sellu 2016
it is clear this is mater for the jury to decide.what happened in this was the court of appeal, criminal division allied the appeal of D, a consultant colorectal surgeon,against a conviction GNM of the deceased patient (V) and quashed D’s conviction.
