Involuntary Manslaughter- Gross Negligence Mansalughter (GNM)

Question 1

Introduce GNM + involuntary manslaughter.

Answer 1

• Involuntary manslaughter - full offence - unlawful killing but no MR for murder.
• Sentence - max life imprisonment.
• GNM committed when D owes V duty of care but breaches duty in very negligent way, causing death of V.
• R v Broughton (2020): leading case - 6 elements that need to be established.

Question 2

State + explain the first element of GNM, existence of a duty of care by D towards V.

Answer 2

• Adomako: Lord Mackay stated whether duty exists will depend on ‘ordinary principles of negligence.’
• Donoghue v Stevenson: came from ‘neighbour principle’.
• Caparo v Dickman: developed neighbour principle further - 3 point test for duty of care being owed created.
• R v Robinson: only need caparo test in novel cases.
  Duty Of Care In Criminal Act (Public Policy):
• R v Wacker: duty owed even if Vs were parties to illegal act.
• Willoughby: CoA confirmed Wacker.
  Duty Of Care’s Owed As D Created State Of Affairs:
• R v Evans: D created state of affairs he knew, or ought to reasonably know, was threatening to V’s life.
• Must state if + how duty was owed - through ordinary principles of neg or through D creating state of affairs.

Question 3

Explain the second element of GNM, act or omission breaches duty (creates serious + obvious risk of death).

Answer 3

Act:
* Hill v Baxter: breach can be committed through act.
Omission:
* Judge Stephen J quote + 6 + 1 omissions

Question 4

Explain the third element of GNM, breach of duty must create serious + obvious risk of death.

Answer 4

• Adomako: unclear whether had to be risk of death through D’s conduct or whether risk need only be to ‘health + welfare’ of V.
• R v Misra + Srivastava: resolved matter - was there risk of death?
• R v Kuddus: must be that reasonable person, in circumstances of D, could conclude there was obvious + serious risk of death.

Question 5

Explain the fourth element of GNM, risk of death was reasonably foreseeable at time of death.

Answer 5

• Was it reasonably foreseeable, that at time of breach, that breach gave rise to obvious risk of death?
• R v Rose: based on facts known, was it reasonably foreseeable that death could occur?

Question 6

Explain the fifth element of GNM, breach of duty causes death.

Answer 6

• Must be proved breach alone caused death of V.
• General rules of causation apply - go through them.
• R v Broughton (2020): breach of duty was factor that actually caused death.
• R v Bah (2024): confirms chain of causation wont be broken, because of V’s own act in deciding to engage in crim matter.

Question 7

Explain the sixth element of GNM, negligence was truly exceptionally bad + so reprehensible as to amount to gross negligence.

Answer 7

• Bateman: negligence has to be ‘gross’, + that’s to say it’s seen as crim.Lord Hewart said: ‘in opinion of jury, neg went beyond matter of mere compensation + showed such disregard for life + safety of others as to amount to crime against state + conduct deserving of punishment’
• Was it so bad to be crim? - if so then gross - up to jury to decide.