Gross negligence manslaughter

• when the defendant owes a duty of care but breaches the duty in a very negligent way, causing the death of the victim.

  R V Adamako
• 1. A duty of care must be owed, these come from Caparo V Dickman.

  R V Wacker
• R V Miller- a duty arises if D was aware or ought to be aware that the victim's life was at risk and any of the following applies:

  • defendant contributed by supply
  • defendant was in a relationship
  • defendant and victim were engaged in a dangerous joint enterprise that went wrong
  • defendant voluntarily assumed a duty of care
• Breach of duty causing death:

  Causation is important. Whether there is a breach is actually up to the jury.
• Gross Negligence - R V Bateman

  The negligence has to be gross which was explained in this case, involving negligent treatment of a patient by a doctor.

  Ultimately, the jury decides whether the negligence is gross and showed 'such disregard for life and safety of others'
• Risk of death: R V Mirsa and Srivastava

  There must be an obvious risk of death which is judged objectively.
• Supply of illegal drugs: RV Dias

  it is possible that in situations where the defendant has supplied a drug to the victim who self injects but then dies the defendant could still be liable for gross negligence manslaughter.

  A duty of care was owed.
• Mens rea for gross negligence:

  defendant will be judged by their behaviour rather than state of mind. there must be an obvious risk of death, but this is judged objectively so it doesn't matter if the defendant didn't see the risk.