gross negligence manslaugher

• Cases related to different legal concepts:

  • R v Adamako (1994): 3-stage duty of care
  • R v Broughton (2020): 6-stage negligence manslaughter
  • Rose (2017): meaning test contractual test
  • R v DPP: foresee risk of death
  • R v Rudling (2016): meaning
  • R v Litchfield (1997): contractual duty - owner of shop
• In a general civil 'negligence claim', the person who caused the injury or damage is only liable if:

  • They owe the claimant a duty of care
  • They breached this duty
  • The breach caused reasonable foreseeable injury
• Gross negligence manslaughter is committed when the defendant owes the victim a duty of care but breaches it in a criminally negligent way, causing the victim's death
• For gross negligence manslaughter, the jury must conclude that a reasonable person would have foreseen a serious and obvious risk of death, not merely a risk of injury
• The meaning of 'serious' in foreseeing risk of death was considered in R v Ruckling (2016) and the meaning of 'obvious' was considered in RV Rose (2017)
• Six elements to be proven in a negligence case:

  1. Owed a duty of care to the victim
  2. Negligently breached that duty of care
  3. There was a serious and obvious risk of death
  4. The risk was reasonably foreseeable
  5. Caused or made a significant contribution to the death
  6. It amounted to gross negligence and required criminal sanction
• Case examples:

  • R v Singh (lacia): contractual duty of care to maintain property properly
  • R v Litchfield (1997)
  • Wacker (2002): owner of shop with a contractual duty of care
  • R v Zaman (2017): failure to adequately train staff on peanut allergy - contractual duty of care
  • R v Store + Dobinson (1977): contractual duty in a voluntary relationship
• A serious risk of death is not the same as the possibility to eliminate a risk, but a clear and unambiguous risk
• Fatal Offences Act 1957
• Duty of care can arise from statute, common law, or contract
• Involuntary manslaughter includes both gross negligence manslaughter and unlawful act manslaughter.
• Gross negligence manslaughter requires proof of a serious and obvious risk of death, while unlawful act manslaughter does not require this element.
• Common law duties include those arising out of relationships such as parent/child, teacher/pupil, doctor/patient, employer/employee, landlord/tenant, and occupier/visitor.
• Gross negligence manslaughter requires proof of six elements: owing a duty of care, breaching it by acting recklessly, causing death through an unlawful act, being aware of the risk of death, making a significant contribution to the death, and requiring criminal sanctions.
• The defendant must have been aware of the risk of causing harm when committing an unlawful act that caused death.
• Unlawful act manslaughter involves committing an unlawful act that causes death without intending to kill or cause grievous bodily harm.
• Contractual duties of care include maintaining premises safely, providing safe equipment, ensuring adequate training, and following safety procedures.
• The standard of care required depends on the relationship between the parties involved.
• The defendant must have been aware that there was a real possibility of serious harm occurring if they did not take reasonable precautions.
• There are two types of gross negligence manslaughter: (a) where the defendant's actions were so bad that no reasonable person would do them; and (b) where the defendant failed to appreciate the risks involved in their actions.
• A person is guilty of gross negligence manslaughter if they owe a duty of care, commit an unlawful act with awareness of the risk of causing harm, cause death, make a significant contribution to the victim's death, and their conduct falls below the standard expected of a reasonable person in the same position.
• Causation is established if the defendant's actions were more than merely a remote or insignificant cause of death.
• Statutory duties of care are imposed under various statutes, including health and safety legislation, food hygiene laws, and fire safety requirements.
• A person can be convicted of involuntary manslaughter even if they did not intend to commit any crime.
• Criminal liability can arise from failing to meet these duties of care if there is a serious and obvious risk of injury or death.
• A person can be found guilty of gross negligence manslaughter if they owe a duty of care, commit an unlawful act with awareness of the risk of serious injury, and make a significant contribution to the victim's death.
• Causation refers to whether the defendant's actions were a substantial and operating cause of the victim's death.
• In cases involving multiple defendants, it may be difficult to determine which one caused the victim's death.
• If the prosecution cannot prove that any individual defendant committed gross negligence manslaughter, but can show that all defendants contributed to the victim's death, then joint enterprise liability applies.
• In law, a contractual duty to act exists when there is a relationship between the victim and the accused
• Cases illustrating the duty of care concept:

  • R v Pittwood (1902): duty exists because of a relationship between the victim and the accused
  • Ru Gibbins + Proctor (1818)
  • R v Evans (2009)
  • R v Stone + Dobinson (1977)
  • R v Dytham (1979)
  • R v Miller (1983)
• A duty towards the victim can arise from an official position, as seen in cases like R v Stone + Dobinson (1977) and R v Evans (2009)
• An act of Parliament can create an offence involving omission, with causation requiring both legal and factual aspects to be proven
• Causation in law:

  • Strict liability: no mens rea is required
  • Legal causation: the defendant's conduct was in law the cause of the consequence
  • Factual causation: the defendant's conduct was the factual cause of that consequence
  • The prosecution must show there was no intervening act breaking the chain of events causation
• What are the three elements required for a successful negligence claim?

  Duty of care, breach of duty, and causation of reasonably foreseeable injury/damage
• What is gross negligence manslaughter?


  It occurs when a defendant breaches a duty of care in a criminally negligent way, causing a victim's death
• How can gross negligence manslaughter be committed?


  By act or omission
• What are the stages of the Adamako (1994) test for gross negligence manslaughter?


  1. Existence of a duty of care by the defendant towards the victim
  2. Breach of that duty of care causing death
  3. Gross negligence considered criminal by the jury
• What was the role of the anaesthetist in the Adamako (1994) case?


  The anaesthetist failed to notice a disconnected oxygen tube, leading to the patient's death
• What are the stages of the R v Broughton (2020) test for gross negligence manslaughter?


  1. Existing duty of care to the victim
  2. Negligent breach of that duty
  3. Serious and obvious risk of death at the time of breach
  4. Foreseeability of serious risk of death
  5. Breach caused or significantly contributed to the victim's death
  6. Circumstances deemed exceptionally bad by the jury