Gross negligence manslaughter

• 6 part Gross negligence manslaughter test 


  established in R v Adamako and reaffirmed in R v Broughton
• 1. Did the D owe the V a duty of care?


  • Singh - Landlord/Tenant
  • Bolam - Doctor/Patient
  • Nettleship v Weston - Learner/Passenger
  • Statute: Road Traffic Act 1988
• 2. D breached the duty of care


  ‘What would the reasonable man of the same skill and competence do in the D’s situation?’ Blythe v Birmingham
• 3. At the time of breach was there a serious and obvious risk of death?


  Serious = more than minimal

  Obvious = present, clear and unambiguous

  Added by R v Broughton
• 4. Reasonably foreseeable that at the time of breach that the breach gave rise to a serious and obvious risk of death 


  R v Broughton
• 5. Did the breach cause the Vs death?


  Factual and Legal

  • factual - but for test, rv white rv Pagett
  • Legal - must be more than minimal cause, de minimus rule, rv Kimsey. Must be substantial and operating cause, r v smith
  • Novus actus interveniens, must be so independent of Ds acts. - medical, rv Jordan rv Cheshire. - vs own acts, rv Williams rv roberts. - 3rd party, rv pagett
  • Thin skull rule, must take v as found him. Rv blaue
• 6. Were the D’s actions so grossly negligent that they can be classified as criminal?


  “Such disregard for the life and safety of others” R v Bateman
• R v Misra and Srivstava


  Breach must be so bad that it risked death