CS - Gross Negligence Manslaughter

• Adomako (1994)


  Duty of Care - An anaesthetist failed to notice a breathing tube had become disconnected during an operation. V had a heart attack and died. Ratio: It was decided that the civil principles of negligence apply including the neighbour principle in Donoghue v Stevenson, i.e. a duty of care is owed to anyone it is reasonably foreseeable may be harmed by D’s negligent acts or omissions.
• Singh (1999) 


  Duty of Care - a faulty gas fire caused the death of tenants. The landlord was held to a have a duty to maintain the property.
• Litchfield (1998)


  Duty of Care - a ship’s captain set sail even though he knew the fuel was contaminated. The engine failed and crew members drowned. The captain owed a duty of care to the crew.
• Winter (2010)


  Duty of Care - Ds owed a duty of care to inform firefighters attending a fire at their premises that they were storing unlicensed fireworks. Two firefighters died from an explosion.
• Stone & Dobinson (1977)


  Duty of Care - Ds had voluntarily undertaken a duty to care for their anorexic relative, but were liable for her death when they failed to get medical help.
• Evans (2009)


  Duty of Care - V self-injected with heroin supplied by V’s half-sister and collapsed. She and her mother did not seek medical help as they feared getting into trouble. Ratio: The mother clearly owed a duty to her daughter. Her half-sister also owed V a duty of care under the “Miller principle” of creating a dangerous situation and failing to minimise it.
• Wacker (2002)


  Duty of Care - The bodies of 58 illegal immigrants were discovered in D’s lorry. They had suffered because the driver had closed the air vents to keep the noise down and avoid detection when crossing the channel.

  Ratio: The driver had voluntarily assumed a duty of care when he closed the vents and was in breach of it by not opening it. It was irrelevant that the deceased had entered into an arrangement knowing it was unlawful and knowing that they were accepting a degree of risk.
• Broughton (2010)


  Breach of Duty - This is complicated where the breach of duty is by an omission, e.g. failing to get help. In such situations, the prosecution would have to prove that V would have survived if D had fulfilled his duty to act.
• Singh (1999)


  Breach of Duty - Risk of Death - the tenant’s death from carbon monoxide poisoning was a foreseeable risk if the gas fire was not maintained properly by the landlord.
• Misra (2004)


  Breach of Duty - Risk of Death - hospital doctors failed to identify and treat V for an infection after his knee operation. V died. D’s manslaughter conviction was upheld. The foreseeable risk related to death. A risk of serious injury would not be enough.
• Rose (2017)


  Breach of Duty - Risk of Death - an optometrist failed to spot a brain condition in a young boy she examined during a routine eye test. If she had examined the boy properly the death could have been prevented. However, it was not reasonably foreseeable at the time of the breach (examination) that there was a serious and obvious risk of death.
• Bateman (1925)


  Gross Negligence - “gross” was defined as negligence which went beyond a mere matter of civil compensation between subjects and showed such disregard for the life and safety of others as to amount to a crime against the state and deserving of punishment.
• Adomako (1994)


  Gross Negligence - it was stressed that the jury had to decide whether, having regard to the risk of death involved, D’s acts or omissions were so bad in the circumstances that it was criminal negligence.
• Sellu (2016)


  Gross Negligence - During a routine knee operation, the patient suffered a perforated bowel. Despite many opportunities, D failed to perform life-saving procedures. Ratio: The task of the jury is to identify the line that separates serious or even very serious mistakes or lapses, from conduct which is “truly exceptionally bad and such a departure from that standard [of a reasonably competent doctor] that it consequently amounted to being criminal”.