Gross negligence manslaughter

Question 1

Adomako - Elements of GNM

Answer 1

1. D must owe V a duty of care
2. D must breach that duty
3. D’s breach must cause V’s death
4. D must have been grossly negligent

Question 2

1. Duty

Answer 2

Can be proven with a duty of care (Donoghue v Stevenson) created duty of care

Question 3

Caparo v Dickman

Answer 3

Test for duty of care:
1. Damage (Harm) to V must be reasonable foreseeable (Jolley v Sutton)

2. There must a proximity between V and D (Osman v Ferguson; Bourhill v Young) either through relationship or time and space
3. It must be fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care on D (Hill v Chief constable of south yorkshire police)

Question 4

1. OR through a criminal duty to act

Duty to act situations only apply when there is an omission

Answer 4

Relationship - Gibbins and Proctor

Voluntarily assuming responsibility - Stone and Dobinson

Contractual - R v Pittwood

Public office - R v Dytham

Creating a dangerous situation - R v Miller

Question 5

Voluntary assumption of care

Answer 5

Criminal law - assumption of care must be significant for D to be held responsible for omission.

Normally where D and V are in a relationship or in a particular situation and D has WILLINGLY and ACTIVELY taken over care of V.

It isn’t ENOUGH to make a person criminally responsible if all they are trying to do is help or do the right thing e.g. Calling emergency services.

Question 6

R v Evans

Answer 6

The assumption of care/responsibility must be significant for D to be held responsible for his omission.

Question 7

Ex turpi causa

Answer 7

Means when parties are involved in a joint venture to commit a crime, they don’t owe a duty of care to each other.

Question 8

If D and V are embarking upon an illegal activity they will still owe a duty of care to each other for the purposes of gross negligence.

Answer 8

Ex turpi causa does not apply to criminal law.

Question 9

Wacker

Answer 9

There can be a duty even though D is committing an illegal act.
D and V involved in transporting illegal immigrants into the country.

Question 10

2. Breach of duty (involving risk of death)

Answer 10

Breach of duty means that D has fallen below the standard of behaviour expected of a reasonable person.

Question 11

Blyth v Birmingham waterworks

Answer 11

Defines BofD as:

Not doing something the reasonable man would do, or doing something the reasonable man wouldn’t do.

Question 12

Nettleship v Weston

Answer 12

Inexperience doesn’t lower the standard of care expected of D

Question 13

Bolam

Answer 13

Standard of care raised due to profession - if D has particular skills, he will be judged against a reasonable person with the same skills/ expertise.

Question 14

Mullins v Richards

Answer 14

Age lowers standard of care - children will be judged against reasonable person of the same age.

Question 15

Risk factors

Answer 15

Important when proving breach.

Question 16

Size of Risk

Answer 16

How likely is harm to happen?

Bolton v Stone - Small risk of harm = lower standard of care expected.

Miller v Jackson - Bigger risk of harm = higher standard of care expected.

Question 17

Seriousness of potential harm

Answer 17

How serious will harm be if it happens?

Paris v Stepney - Potential harm could be serious = higher standard of care.

Ds knew C was blind on one eye if the other eye were to be damaged then it would result in a very serious injury.

Question 18

Practicability of precautions

Answer 18

How easily could D have taken precautions to reduce risk?

Latimer v AEC - Precautions taken must correspond with risk = more/ better precautions expected.

Risk lowered as D had taken reasonable steps by spreading sawdust on spillage.

Haley v LEB - Only precaution taken i.e leaving hammer there was insufficient for blind population - the reasonable person would have done more.

Question 19

Benefits of taking risk

Answer 19

What stands to be gained from D taking a risk?

Watt v HCC - Benefit bigger than the risk = lower standard of care

as lower risk outweighed by the need to save a life.

Question 20

The breach must also involve a risk of death

Misra and Srivastava

Answer 20

Confirmed need for there to be a risk of death.

Question 21

Lewin

Answer 21

Decided that the reasonable person would not have realised there was a risk of death by leaving V in the car.

Question 22

3. The breach must cause the death

Answer 22

Factual causation - But for test (Pagett)

Legal causation - Operative and Substantial test (Smith)

The chain will be broken if there’s an intervening act:

1. Victims own actions (Williams)
2. Actions of a third party (Jordan)
3. Act of God (e.g. Tsunami)

Think skull rule does not break the chain (Blaue)

Question 23

Gross negligence

Answer 23

Adomako - Confirmed that the test for the ‘gross’ part of GNM and stressed that the question was a matter for the jury to decide.

Test : D’s conduct is SO BAD as to amount to a criminal act/ omission.