GNM

• Introduction

  -when D owe duty of care and negligently breaches

  - life

  -non custodial

  -R v adomako. gives four elements to establish -type of involuntary manslaughter.
• Duty of care

  -Whether a duty of care exists will depend on the "ordinary principles of negligence" as stated in Adomako.

  -These ordinary principles of negligence, and specifically the neighbour principle, originated from the case of Donoghue Stevenson.

  -This point of law was developed further by the case of Caparo v Dickman, which established a three stage test that needed to be satisfied in order to show that a duty of care does exist.

  -was the damage or harm reasonably foreseeable

  -is there a sufficient proximate relationship between the claimant and the defendant

  -is it fair just and reasonable to impose a duty

  -However, in the case of Robinson (2018) it has been confirmed that we only need to go through Capro to establish a duty of care, if the case is novel, that is to say it is new.
• State of affairs

  -a situation or set of circumstances

  -D creates situation -R v evans

  -R v miller states result is only concerned where d aware of risks and had duty of care
• Duty breached

  act/ommison. -d learner status irrelevant-nettleship v Weston
• Causation-breach cause death 


  Legal and factual -r v adomako jury decide if breach -r v brought on-importance establish breach was factor that actually caused death
• Breach was grossly negligent


  -just negligence dosent amount to GNM

  -has to be gross

  -this means has to be seen as criminal as shown in R v Bateman

  -jury decide if so bad as to be criminal

  -point 1 to consider

  -conduct of the D so bad, in all the circumstances as to amount, in their judgement, to a criminal act or omission.

  -2.seriousness of the breach of duty in all the circumstances in which the defendant was place when it occurred and whether it was so bad as to be criminal - if it is then it is gross!
• Risk of death

  -adomako not make clear if needs to be risk of death

  -of R v Misra and Srivastava (2004).

  -For this offence to work there must be an obvious risk of death, judged objectively
• Illegal substances


  -It is possible that in situations where the defendant has supplied a drug to the victim who self-injects but then dies, the defendant could be liable for GNM. This view was put forward in the case of R v Dias (2002).

  -There have been convictions on this basis where there has been a close relationship between the defendant and the victim.

  -In these cases, it is possible to show that the defendant owed the victim a duty of care.

  -It may also be possible to rely on

  GNM if the drug user is either particularly vulnerable, for example a first-time user who is very young, or the defendant is aware of problems following the victim's self-injection.
• Duty of care part 2

  • -ex turpi causa -can be duty through commission criminal offence -
  • willoughby-confirm sacked which said if engage in criminal activity -v closely directed by d actions