Involuntary Manslaughter Flashcards
Gross negligence manslaughter - leading case
R v Adomako
Gross negligence manslaughter - requirements
a) the existence of a duty of care;
b) breach of that duty;
c) the breach causes death;
d) there was a risk of death;
e) the breach of duty was so bad as to amount to ‘gross negligence.’
Gross negligence manslaughter - a) the existence of a duty of care
- Essentially given the same meaning as it has in tort law; a defendant will owe a duty towards anyone where harm caused by their acts was foreseeable.
- It is settled in the law of tort that everyone has a duty to take care to avoid injury by a positive act to their neighbour
- Liability can also arise for omission in circumstances where the defendant is under a specific duty to act. This can arise by statute or contract, as a result of a special relationship between the defendant and victim, as a result of the defendant’s voluntary assumption of a duty of care, or as a result of the defendant creating the dangerous situation.
- The judge decides whether there is sufficient evidence for a duty to go before the jury based on the specific facts of each case.
Gross negligence manslaughter - a) the existence of a duty of care - cases
R v Singh - Deceased tenant died from carbon monoxide poisoning as a result of a faulty gas fire. The defendant was the maintenance man; he was in charge of the lodging house while his father, the owner, was away. ‘there existed a close relationship between him and his father’s tenants…Mr Singh had assumed a duty of care towards his father’s tenants.’
R v Ruffell - R had supplied drugs to the victim who had clearly suffered an adverse reaction to the drugs. R did various things to try and revive V, but then ended up leaving him outside. It was very cold and V died from a combination of hypothermia and the drugs. The defendant had breached a duty of care although not clear exactly how duty arose - either from voluntary assumption of care or creation of dangerous situation. The defendant can still have a duty of care in criminal cases, even though such liability may be avoided in tort.
R v Wacker - A lorry driver was convicted of killing by gross negligence after 58 illegal immigrants were suffocated while being transported in his lorry. The defendant argued that law of negligence meant that there was no duty of care because it was a criminal act. CoA held that it was inappropriate to apply this tort principle to a criminal case.
Gross negligence manslaughter - b) Breach of duty of care
R v Adomako - The ordinary principles of negligence apply; question is whether the defendant’s acts fell below the standard expected of a reasonable person. The reasonable person will be attributed with any special skill used by the defendant, i.e. in Adomako the question was whether the defendant’s actions had fallen below the standard of a reasonable anaesthetist.
Gross negligence manslaughter - c) The breach caused the death of the victim
- Normal causation principles apply.
- Factual causation: ‘But for’ the acts or omissions of the accused, the relevant consequence would not have occurred in the way that it did (R v White)
- Legal causation: The defendant must be the ‘operating and substantial’ cause of the prohibited consequence (R v Pagett)
- Substantial meaning: a cause which is more than de minimus (R v Hughes)
- Operating meaning: there is no novus actus interveniens
Gross negligence manslaughter - d) There was a risk of death
R v Singh - There must ‘be an obvious and serious risk not merely of injury or even serious injury, but of death.’
R v Rose - A mere possibility that an assessment might reveal something life threatening was not the same as an obvious risk of death: an obvious risk was a present risk which was clear and unambiguous, not one which might become apparent on further investigation.
Gross negligence manslaughter - e) The breach was sufficiently serious to constitute gross negligence
R v Litchfield - Captain of a ship was convicted of manslaughter by gross negligence when three of his crew members died after he sailed dangerously close to the Cornish coast, knowing that he would have to rely on his engines and knowing they may break down as a result of him using contaminated fuel. ‘With his vast experience of sailing, he must have appreciated the obvious and serious risk of death.’ Question for the jury was whether the captain’s conduct was ‘so bad, so obviously wrong, that it can be properly condemned as criminal…in the ordinary language of men and women of the world.’ The fact the defendant had recognised the risk made it easier for the jury to convict.
R v Adomako - Anaesthetist attending an operation did not appreciate there had been a disconnection of the oxygen tube. After 4 mins, an alarm sounded. The patient died 9 mins later. At no stage between the alarm and the death was the connection checked, despite the fact the patient had started to turn blue. Witnesses called by the prosecution stated that ‘the standard of care that the patient received was abysmal.’ Checking the oxygen tube was basic procedure. Gross negligence a ‘question of degree.’ This case proves it is possible (but still unusual) that a single, terrible mistake can lead to liability.
R v Bateman - Facts must be such that, in the opinion of the jury, the negligence of the accused went beyond a mere matter of compensation between subjects and showed such disregard for life and safety of others as to amount to a crime against the State.
AG’s Ref - no requirement of any proof of any particular state of mind.
Misra and Srivastava - Victim developed an infection following an operation. The two defendants were the doctors responsible for V’s post operative care from operation to time of death. Despite numerous signs of significant post operative problems, they took little action. Such a catalogue of errors could not realistically be anything other than grossly negligent.
R v Singh - Given the number of complaints, his direct involvement, and his knowledge, S’s conviction was upheld.
Prentice and Sullman - P required to administer a routine lumbar injection to a 16 year old. He had not done this before so consulted the registrar, who arranged for S (who had only done it once) to supervise. S took the wrong drug from a box of drugs and handed to P who injected it. The patient died. The mistakes were in part brought about the failures of others (incl. the more senior doctors), so it was not ‘grossly negligent.’
Summary of what might constitute gross negligence
- When the defendant is responsible for a series of acts/omissions rather than a single event, this may make it easier to find gross negligence (Misra, Litchfield)
- A single devastating act can be grossly negligent (Adomako)
- Where the defendant’s mistakes are themselves in part or in whole brought about by mistakes of others, this may be a reason for not convicting (Prentice and Sullman)
- The defendant has a clear personal responsibility and the ability to discharge it (R v Singh)
- The defendant has knowledge/experience that should alert them to the danger (contrast P&S with Singh/Litchfield)
- No requirement for any mental state (Adomako) but the defendant’s state of mind is not irrelevant (Litchfield - relevant that Litchfield was aware of the serious risk of death)
- If someone has seen a high risk of death and has a ‘couldn’t care less’ attitude to this, it is highly likely they will be convicted.
- If the defendant genuinely did not believe there was a risk, this a factor the court can take into account.
Unlawful act (constructive) manslaughter - leading case
DPP v Newbury and Jones
Unlawful act manslaughter - requirements
a) The defendants intentionally (voluntarily) did an act;
b) the act was unlawful;
c) the unlawful act was dangerous;
d) the unlawful act caused the death of the victim
Unlawful act manslaughter - a) The defendant’s act was intentional
The accused must have voluntarily/intentionally have carried out an act, which results in the death of a person. This refers to intention with regard to the doing of the act, not to the consequences which flow from it.
Unlawful act manslaughter - b) The defendant’s act was unlawful
Three aspects:
(i) a criminal act;
(ii) an intrinsically unlawful act;
(iii) an act rather than an omission
Unlawful act manslaughter - b) i) must be a criminal act
R v Franklin - ‘The mere fact of a civil wrong committed by one person against another ought not to be used as an incident which is a necessary step in a criminal case.’
R v Lamb - The criminal act must be independent of the fact that it has caused death. Both the actus reus and the mens rea of the criminal act must be proven. In this case, it was assault, and not all the elements were proven, so the prosecution failed.
R v Scarlett - If the defendant was using reasonable force in acting in self defence or to prevent a crime, there would be no unlawful assault and therefore unlawful act manslaughter would also be quashed.
The unlawful act need not be serious and can simply be a common assault. Typically, the unlawful act will be an offence against the person, but it can be any offence.
Unlawful act manslaughter - b) ii) The act must be intrinsically unlawful
The unlawful act cannot be based on a lawful act, which becomes unlawful only because of the negligent or reckless manner in which it is performed e.g. driving
Andrews v DPP - ‘There is an obvious difference in the law of manslaughter between doing an unlawful act and doing a lawful act with a degree of carelessness which the Legislature makes criminal. If it were otherwise a man who killed another while driving without due care and attention would…commit manslaughter.’
