Involuntary Manslaughter: Gross Negligence Flashcards
Gross Negligence Manslaughter
Gross negligence manslaughter can be said to apply where the defendant commits a lawful actin such a way as to render the actions criminal.
Gross negligence manslaughter also differs from constructive manslaughter in that it can be committed by omission.
R v Bateman 1925 :
-Doctor convicted of Manslaughter based on his treatment of a woman in childbirth.
- Guidance on GNManslaughter:
‘In order to establish criminal liability the 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 the life and safety of others as to amount to a crime against the State and conduct deserving punishment.’
Andrews v DPP 1937:
-Followed R v Bateman 1925
R v Lawrence (Stephen) 1982:
- Lord Diplock created standard direction of Jury based on Reckless Manslaughter.
- Jury decide whether obvious and serious risk was created by D that ordinary person would have foreseen.
R v Seymour 1983:
-Followed direction of Jury given in Lawrence.
Adomako
And
Test for GNM
R v Adomako 1994:
- D anaesthetist who didn’t notice vital breathing tube had disconnected during operation, patient died.
- D appealed but conviction Upheld.
- HoL decided R v Seymour should no longer apply.
Adomako became leading case for Gross Negligence Manslaughter.
Following Adomako, Prosecution must establish that D:
-Owed a Duty of Care to V
-Was in Breach of Duty
-Breach of Duty caused Death
-The D’s conductwasas bad in all the circumstances as to amount in the jury’s opinion to a crime.
Adomako:
No Mens Rea Required
AGR 2 of 1999 [2000]:
- Train Crash, 7 people died.
- Driver experienced but missed yellow warning signs for a signal, Train crashed into signal.
- AGR referred to CoA questioning if D can be convicted for GNM without evidence of MR.
- CoA said evidence of MR not needed.
Adomako:
Drug Dealers Owing Duty of Care
R v Khan & Khan 1998:
- 2 D’s sold heroin to 15yo in their flat, 15yo went into coma, D’s left, found V dead next day.
- Appealed, conviction quashed because judge misdirected Jury.
- Court didn’t rule out possibility of drug dealers owing Duty of Care.
R v Evans 2009:
- D convicted of GNM after giving heroin to V and leaving her while she overdosed.
- Judge had let Jury decide if there was Duty of Care.
- Appealed, decided it was wrong to let Jury decide if there was Duty of Care.
- Duty of Care did come from creation of dangerous situation by selling her drugs, so conviction Upheld.
Adomako:
Duty of Care
R v Wacker 2003:
- D drove lorry full of illegal immigrants to England, only 1 air vent, which had to be closed when lorry was inspected.
- D closed vent whilst driving on to ferry and didn’t open it, people on ferry for 10 hrs, 58/60 died. Convicted GNM.
- Appealed but held he owed Duty of Care, even though negligence law didn’t recognise Duty of Care between participants in criminal enterprises.
R v Willoughby 2004:
- D owned pub but was in debt, D asked V to burn down pub, fire caused explosion, V crushed by collapsing building and died.
- D convicted GNM, Appealed that he owed no Duty of Care
- Conviction Upheld.
Adomako:
EU Convention Rights
The Problem with the circularity of the GNM test is that the Jury finds D liable if the think their actions amount to a crime. This was challenged as being in breach of Article’s 6 & 7 ECHR. Court held test was sufficient and complied with ECHR.
R v Misra & Srivastava 2005:
- 2 doctors convicted GNM after death of patient post-operation.
- D’s wanted to change Adomako test and argued it was against Article’s 6 & 7 ECHR.
- Conviction Upheld, Adomako didn’t infringe ECHR.
