Gross negligence manslaughter

• INTRODUCTION

  It is possible that D may be liable for Gross negligence Manslaughter in relation to the death of V. 

  The law on GNM was explained in Adomako, and this case established that the normal rules of negligence apply to duty and breach of duty.
• STAGE ONE

  There must be a duty of care. The duty can arise from criminal law on omissions (Wacker) or the civil law of negligence. 

  In negligence, a duty may already be well established (Robinson v CC of West Yorkshire);

  if not the 3 stage test is used to establish whether a duty is owed (Caparo v Dickman). 
• STAGE TWO

  The D must breach the Duty.

  The normal rules of negligence apply and the D will be judged against the standard of the reasonable man, or against the competent professional or competent body of professionals (Bolam). 

  No allowance are made for inexperience (Nettleship v Weston)

  If the D is a child, they will be judged according to the reasonable child of the same age (Mullin v Richards)
• STAGE THREE

  It must then be established that the reasonable person would have foreseen a serious and obvious risk of death (Singh).

  This is an objective test.

  Broughton; there must be a reasonably foreseeable risk
• STAGE FOUR

  legal and factual causation

  • but for test ( White )
  • de minimis principle ( Kimsey )
  • intervening acts of god, 3rd party ( Cheshire ) or victim ( Roberts )
  • thin skull rule ( Blaue )
• STAGE FIVE

  Finally it must be proven that the negligence was gross. This is a question for the jury to decide. 

  There is no need to establish any mens rea for this offence (AGs Ref No 2 1999).

  In Bateman it was said that gross negligence was where the defendant showed such a disregard for the life and safety of others that it amounted to a crime.

  In Adomako it was explained as conduct which was so bad in all the circumstances as to amount to a crime deserving of punishment.