gross negligence manslaughter

Question 1

what is Gross negligence manslaughter

Answer 1

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

Question 2

what invol manslaughter (MR AR)

Answer 2

you have the guilty act but not the guilty mind no intention.

Question 3

what happen in R v Adomako 1995

Answer 3

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

Question 4

what are the elements of GNM

Answer 4

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

Question 5

facts of R v Broughton 2020

Answer 5

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.

Question 6

held for R v Broughton 2020

Answer 6

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.

Question 7

when has duty of care has been held

Answer 7

has been held exist for purposes of criminal law in various situations

Question 8

what case help made the neighbour principle

Answer 8

Donoghue v Stevenson 1932

Question 8

what happen in Donoghue v Stevenson 1932

Answer 8

some one that someone you interacted with anyone which owe each other duty of care.

Question 9

examples of duty of care

Answer 9

A parent and their children
A teacher and their students

Question 10

what is the first step of the Broughton GNM

Answer 10

The existence of duty of care to the deceased;

Question 11

case link to the first step of broughton GNM

Answer 11

r v evans

Question 12

what is the second step of broughton GNM

Answer 12

breach of that duty of care

Question 13

cases links to the second step of broughton

Answer 13

R v stone and dobinson
R v miller
R v gibbins and proctor
R v dytham

Question 14

what is the third step of broughton GNM

Answer 14

Reasonable foresight that the breach involves a risk of death

Question 15

the four step of broughton GNM

Answer 15

Cause (or significantly contributes) to death of the victim

Question 16

what is the fifth step of broughton GNM

Answer 16

The breach should be characterised as gross negligence, and therefore a crime.

Question 17

what is the sixth step of broughton GNM

Answer 17

breach were truly exceptionally bad and so reprehensible as to justify the conclusion that it amounted to gross negligence

Question 18

what did lord Atkin about the neighbout test

Answer 18

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.

Question 19

facts of R v Singh 1999

Answer 19

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

Question 20

held for R v Singh 1999

Answer 20

took no action which makes D guilty of gross negligence manslaughter

Question 21

facts of R v Dean 2002

Answer 21

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

Question 22

held for R v Dean 2002

Answer 22

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.

Question 23

what type of test is the reasonable man test

Answer 23

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

Question 24

what is case link to standard of care learner drivers

Answer 24

nettleship v weston 1971

Question 25

what happen in nettleship v weston 1971

Answer 25

(court of appeal) a learner driver is expected to meet the same standard of a qualified learner driver.

Question 26

facts of Mullin v richards 1998 (court of appeal)

Answer 26

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.

Question 27

held for Mullin v richards 1998 (court of appeal)

Answer 27

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.

Question 28

facts of Bolam v Friern Hospital management 1957

Answer 28

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.

Question 29

held for bolam v friern hospital management 1957

Answer 29

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.

Question 30

what is meant with injuries in GNM

Answer 30

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.

Question 31

what is an obvious risk

Answer 31

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.

Question 32

what cases links to reasonable foresight

Answer 32

r v rose 2017 r v rudling 2016

Question 33

facts of R v Rose 2017

Answer 33

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

Question 34

held for r v rose 2017

Answer 34

D appealed and her conviction was quashed.held:in allowing appeal,

Question 35

what did Leveson LJ stated in r v rose 2017

Answer 35

‘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.

Question 36

facts of R v Rudling 2016

Answer 36

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.

Question 37

held for r v rudling 2016

Answer 37

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.

Question 38

what is the rule of causation

Answer 38

“negligence must have caused the death in the sense that it more than minimally, negligible or trivially contributed to death”

Question 39

case link to causation for GNM

Answer 39

Dalloway 1847

Question 40

what was the negligence in dalloway 1847

Answer 40

it was omission

Question 41

what the conduct of D that lord Mackay said

Answer 41

the conduct of D was so bad in all the circumstances as to amount, in their judgement to a criminal act or omission.

Question 42

what the jury must consider for GNM

Answer 42

the seriousness of the breach of duty in al circumstances in which D was placed at the time.

Question 43

what is the conduct in gross for gnm 2005

Answer 43

conduct that was so gross it can be characterised as a crime

Question 44

what must the jury decide in Gross for GNM 2005

Answer 44

decide whether the defendant’s conduct was so bad, in all the circumstances, as to amount to a criminal act other omissions.

Question 45

what happen in R v Misra and Srivastava 2005

Answer 45

the court agreed with the direction by the judge that the term ‘ reprehensible’ would be apt to describe the nature of conduct.

Question 46

what was the 2020 develop in the view of the jury

Answer 46

circumstances of the breach were truly bad and so reprehensible as to justify the conclusion that it amounted to GN and required criminal sanction.

Question 47

what was stated about R v Cornish

Answer 47

so flagrant and atrocious, it would consequently to a crime.

Question 48

what did the jury decide for R v Sellu 2016

Answer 48

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.