Gross negligence manslaughter

• Applying a duty of care?

  It is usually enough to refer to damage to V being reasonably foreseeable, or V being closely and directly affected by D's act or omission (Lord Atkin in Donoghue v Stevenson).

  Equally, following the case of Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire, if a duty of care has clearly been established (e.g. between doctor and patient, as in Montgomery v Lanarkshire) then this can be applied.
• The case R V Adomako sets out the four elements of gross negligence manslaughter.
• What are 4 elements that must be established??

  1. WAS THERE A DUTY Of CARE TO THE V? 2. WAS THERE A BREACH OF DUTY INVOLVING A RISK OF DEATH? 3. DID THE BREACH CAUSE THE DEATH? 4. WAS THERE GROSS NEGLIGENCE
• Duty of care


  Legal obligation to take reasonable care to avoid causing harm to another person
• examples of duty of care - omissions

  1. Contractual duty

  2. Relationship between parties

  3. Public office

  4. Voluntary assumption of responsibility

  5. Dangerous situation
• Significant voluntary assumption of responsibility


  (R v Evans)
• Dangerous situation


  (R v Santana-Bermudez) and R v Miller
• Factors to consider in determining duty of care

  • Reasonable foreseeability of damage (Jolley v Sutton)
  • Proximity - relationship or time/space (Osman v Ferguson, Vowles v Evans)
  • Fair, just and reasonable to impose duty (Robinson v CC of W Yorkshire, Griffiths v Lindsay)
• Ex turpi causa - if defendant and victim are embarking on illegal activity, defendant may still owe duty of care for purposes of gross negligence - R v Wacker
• Breach of duty

  D doing something the reasonable man wouldn't and not doing something the reasonable man would
• Factors to consider in breach of duty

  • Size of Risk- Bolton V Stone
  • Seriousness of potential harm- Paris V Stepney BC
  • Practicability of precautions- Latimer V AEC
  • Benefit to society-Watt V Hertfordshire CC
• There must be a breach which involves a risk of death which must be foreseen by the reasonable person as in Misra and Lewin V CPS
• DID THE BREACH CAUSE THE DEATH? Causation?

  Would the V’s death still have happened BUT FOR D’s conduct? R V Pagett/White Was D’s conduct the operative and substantial cause of V’s death? R V Smith,

  i.e. significant R V Cheshire.

  A D passes/fails the tests BECAUSE...

  ->Does the thin skull rule apply? R V Blaue

  ->Was there an intervening act and if so does it break the chain of causation? Jordan, R V Roberts/Williams, R V Pagett
• WAS THERE GROSS NEGLIGENCE?

  R V Adomako set out the test for gross negligence, that it was a matter for the jury to decide. Having regard to the risk of death, was D’s conduct SO BAD in all circumstances as to amount to a criminal act or omission?
• Standard of care (SoC)

  A legal term that refers to the level of care and diligence that a reasonable person would exercise in a given situation
• Mullins V Richards


  A legal case that established the principle that age can lower the SoC
• Age

  A factor that can affect the SoC, with younger individuals often being held to a lower standard due to their lack of experience and development
• Nettleship V Weston


  A legal case that established the principle that inexperience does not lower the SoC
• Inexperience


  A factor that does not affect the SoC, as individuals are expected to take reasonable care regardless of their level of experience
• Bolam V B&F HMC


  A legal case that established the principle that expertise can raise the SoC
• Expertise

  A factor that can increase the SoC, as individuals with specialized knowledge or skills are expected to exercise a higher level of care and diligence