Involuntary Manslaughter: Gross Negligence Manslaughter Flashcards
- D may be liable for Gross Negligence Manslaughter as a type of Involuntary Manslaughter which is an…
D may be liable for Gross Negligence Manslaughter as a type of Involuntary Manslaughter which is an Unlawful Killing where the Defendant does not have the Mens Rea for Murder (Malice Aforethought).
There are 5 elements that must be satisfied, (Adomako).
- Firstly, the Defendant must have owed a…
Firstly, the defendant must have owed a duty of care to the victim, (Singh).
This is based on the Law of Tort and Duty of Care was first defined in Donoghue v Stevenson. In Evans A Duty of Care was said to apply ‘wherever D’s conduct carries a foreseeable risk to those around them’.
- ONLY IF RELEVANT: A Duty of Care can be owed even when both the Defendant and Victim…
ONLY IF RELEVANT: A Duty of Care can be owed even when both the Defendant and Victim are engaged in criminal activity, as in Wacker.
- A Duty can also arise from an Omission which means there was a…
4a. Examples are a…
ONLY IF RELEVANT: A Duty can also arise from an Omission which means there was a failure to act when there was a Duty to Act.
Examples are a Duty to Care for someone assumed Voluntarily (Stone and Dobinson, Gibbons and Proctor), the duty to deal with a dangerous situation created (Miller), and a Contractual Duty (Pittwood).
Here [eg. D did owe V a duty of care as when driving a car there was clearly a foreseeable risk to V OR D did owe V a duty of care through an omission as he failed in his duty to care for V that he had assumed voluntarily when he started to look after her].
- Secondly, the Defendant must have breached the Duty of Care owed to the Victim, by…
ONLY IF RELEVANT: The Defendant’s Characteristics may be relevant and there are special rules relating to professionals…
Secondly, the Defendant must have breached the Duty of Care owed to the Victim, by falling below the reasonable person standard of care test set out in Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks.
ONLY IF RELEVANT: The Defendant’s characteristics may be relevant and there are special rules relating to Professionals (Bolam v Friern Barnet HMC, Montgomery v Lanarkshire), Learners (Nettleship v Weston) and Children (Mullins v Richards).
- Thirdly, the Breach of Duty must be the cause…
The Test for Factual Causation is the “but for” test…
Thirdly, the Breach of Duty must be the cause of the death, and so the rules on Factual and Legal Causation must be satisfied.
The Test for Factual Causation is the “but for” test, (White, Pagett), where the harm would not have occurred but for the Defendant.
Here [eg. D was the factual cause of V’s death as but for D texting, V would not have died].
- The Test for Legal Causation is whether the Defendant was the operating and substantial cause…
However, a Novus Actus Interveniens can break the chain of causation if it was not…
- The Test for Legal Causation is whether the Defendant was the operating and substantial cause of the harm, which means significant, more than minimal cause Smith and Pagett.
ONLY IF RELEVANT: However, a Novus Actus Interveniens (intervening act) can break the chain of causation if it was not reasonably foreseeable, (Corbett, Roberts) which concerned the victim’s own act, and in Pagett which concerned A Third Party Act.
Medical Negligence is an Intervening Act that usually will not break the chain of causation, (Cheshire), unless it is considered very serious (“palpably wrong” – Jordan).
Also, if V has a hidden weakness, then D is expected to ‘take his victim as he finds them’, under the thin skull rule, (Blaue).
Here [eg. D texting when driving was probably the operating and substantial cause of death as it was the significant, more than minimal cause of death. Although there was an intervening act when V jumped to the side of the road and was run over, this was a reasonably foreseeable victim’s act and so the chain of causation is not broken. There was medical negligence when the doctor gave the wrong medicine, but this does not seem serious enough (‘palpably wrong’) to break the chain of causation. V had a hidden weakness of a heart condition, but D must take his victim as he finds them under the thin skull rule. Overall, legal causation is satisfied].
- Fourthly, there must have been a serious and obvious risk of death…
Fourthly, there must have been a Serious and Obvious risk of Death and Death did result. (Misra and Srivastava).
Here [eg. there was a serious and obvious risk of death when D was texting when driving, and V’s death did result].
- Fifthly, there must be Gross Negligence…
Gross Negligence was defined in…
Here,
Fifthly, there must be Gross Negligence, where the Negligence was such as to make the defendant criminally liable in the eyes of the jury.
Gross Negligence was defined in Bateman and approved in Adomako as meaning:
‘Conduct so bad in all the circumstances as showing such disregard for the life and safety of others as to amount to a crime’.
Here [eg. the jury may find D’s conduct to be gross negligence and therefore criminal, as it showed such a disregard for the life and safety of others to amount to a crime, because D behaved in an extremely negligent way without any concern for V’s safety].
- TO CONCLUDE…
TO CONCLUDE, D will be liable for involuntary manslaughter as all the elements of gross negligence manslaughter are satisfied.
