Gross negligence manslaughter

• What is gross negligence manslaughter defined as?

  Where the death is as a result of a grossly negligent act or omission
• What case set out the ORIGINAL four stage test for gross negligence manslaughter?

  R v Adomako
• What case has set out the NEW six stage test for gross negligence manslaughter?

  R v Broughton
• What are the six elements in the test for gross negligence manslaughter?

  1. Defendant owed a duty of care to the victim
  2. Defendant negligently breached that duty of care
  3. At the time of the breach there was a serious and obvious risk of death
  4. It was reasonably foreseeable at the time of the breach that the breach gave rise to a serious and obvious risk of death
  5. Causation
  6. In the view of the jury, the circumstances of the breach were truly exceptionally bad as to justify the conclusion that it amounted to gross negligence
• What does a duty of care require?

  Foreseeability, proximity, fairness and justice and reasonableness
• What case lays out that a duty of care requires foreseeability, proximity, fairness, justice and reasonableness?

  Donohue v Stevenson
• When can a duty of care exist?

  Between road users, doctors and patients, 6 duties, where the deceased and the defendant were engaged in illegal activities
• What case states a duty of care can exist when the deceased and the defendant were engaged in illegal activities?


  R v Wacker
• What type of test is it to see if the defendant negligently breached a duty of care?


  An objective test
• What is the objective test to see if the defendant negligently breached the duty of care?

  What a reasonable person would do at the time of the breach
• What standard is an unqualified person judged at when negligently breaching a duty of care?

  The same standard as a qualified person
• When might someone be judged at a higher standard to an ordinary person?

  When the defendant has particular skills or knowledge of a danger that the reasonable person would not have
• What case states that at the time of the breach there must have been a serious and obvious risk of death?

  R v Singh
• What does 'serious' mean in the context of "Serious and obvious risk of death"?

  Something more than minimal or remote - risk of injury or illness or even serious injury or illness is not enough
• What does 'obvious' mean in the context of "Serious and obvious risk of death"?

  A risk that is present, clear and unambiguous
• What type of test is the "It was the reasonably foreseeable at the time of the breach of the duty that the breach gave rise to a serious and obvious risk of death"?

  An objective test
• What is the objective test to see if "it was reasonably foreseeable that the breach gave rise to a serious and obvious risk of death"?

  The risk would have been obvious to a reasonable person in the defendant's position
• What case is there for the objective test to see if "it was reasonably foreseeable that the breach gave rise to a serious and obvious risk of death"?

  R v DPP ex parte Jones
• What case is there for the circumstances of the breach being truly exceptionally bad to justify the conclusion that it amounted to gross negligence?

  R v Misra and Srivastava