GNM

• this is where the D has failed in their duty of care to such an extent that it is considered criminal and the V has died

  Adomako has established the 4 elements of GNM which has been updated in R v Broughton - this case set out a 6-stage set

  1-owe a duty of care

  2-breach that duty of care

  3-serious + obvious risk of death

  4-reasonably foreseeable

  5-breach must cause or significantly contribute to V's death

  6-jury must consider that the breach justifies criminal sanction
• a duty of care must be established - Lord Mackay said that ordinary principles of negligence should apply when determing the existence of duty of care - Adomako

  these 3 principles came from Caparo v Dickman which requires the proximity of relationship, reasonably foreseeable of harm and it being fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care

  duty of care can be owed because of a relationship - R v Singh

  or can arise through an omission - R v Evans
• doctor - patient = R v Adomako

  parent - child = R v Gibbins and Proctore

  landlord - tenant = R v Singh

  contractual duty = R v Litchfield
• here D owed a duty of care as he created a dangerous situation and failed to remedy it. it would have to be proven that D knew or should have known, has become life threatening - Evans
• here D owed a duty of care as he voluntary assumed responsibility for V - Stone and Dobinson

  however, Evans has now suggested that a mere voluntary intervention may not itself be sufficient to form a duty of care, a combination of factors may need to be present, the factors include, the prior friendship between D and V, D's control of the environment in which the incident occurred and the prior involvement of D with V
• the duty must have been breached . the court considers what D was expected to do and whether he failed to do it or did it but to a poor standard - objective test and will be based upon the D's position at the time of the breach. whether there is a breach of duty is a factual matter for the jury to decide.
• this breach must creates a risk of death to the V - Misra and Srivastava. at the time of breach, the jury must conclude that a reasonable prudent person undertaking the role that the accused undertook, would have foreseen a serious and obvious risk of death and not merely a risk of injury, even serious injury - R v Rudling

  the meaning of obvious was considered by CoA in R v Rose as an obvious risk is a present risk which is clear and unambigous, not one which might became apparent on further investigation
• the chain of causation must create a direct link between the D's actions and the result.

  factual causation = 'but for' - R v Pagett

  legal causation = D made more than a minimal cause and also must be more than a slight or trifling link between D's actions and the death- R v Kimsey
• medical negligence = unlikely to break the chain unless it is so dependent of the D's acts and in itself so potent in causing death that the D's acts are insignificant - R v Cheshire

  acts of a 3rd party = only break the chain if the cats are not reasonably foreseeable - R v Pagett

  v's own acts = only break the chain if the acts are not reasonably foreseeable - R v Roberts
• establish legal causation in omission cases, the crown would have to prove that it was certain, or at least highly probable that the V would have survived if the D had fulfilled his duty - Misra and Srivastava
• the negligence must be considered 'gross' by the jury. to determine this, the jury gas to decide having regard to the risk of death involved, the conduct of the D was so bad in all the circumstances as to amount in their judgement, to a criminal act or an omission - R v Adomako +Misra and Srivatava