Gross Negligent Manslaughter

• Gross Negligence Manslaughter


  Where defs. conduct is seriously negligent and that negligence causes death. Maximum of life
• Gross negligence manslaughter – key elements


  • Existence of a duty of care towards the victim
  • A breach of that duty of care
  • It must have been reasonably foreseeable at the time of death that the breach gave rise to a serious and obvious risk of death
  • Breach caused or made a significant (i.e. more than minimal) contribution to the death
  • Gross negligence which the jury considers to be criminal
• Duty of Care & breach of duty


  Did def's conduct fall below that of the reasonable person in their position? The breach can be an act or omission. Many will be duty situations fixed by law such as doctor/patient.
• Adomako


  • A doctor was found guilty of gross negligent manslaughter. During an operation he failed to notice a tube had become disconnected which led to the patient being deprived of oxygen. The court described his treatment as 'abysmal'.
• Failure to seek medical attention


  Broughton (2020) - The key question here was whether B's negligence caused death of victim. B supplied drugs to his GF at a festival and they went into the woods. She became unwell and he eventually went to get help and was initially convicted of gross neg m/s when she died. On appeal his conviction was quashed on the basis that at the time of death it could not be established that it was his negligence that caused the death.
• Singh


  • A landlord was found guilty of gross negligent manslaughter. A faulty gas fire in one of his properties caused the death of the tenants.
• What amounts to Gross Negligence to be criminal?

  Bateman - Decided by the jury whether the negligence is so bad as to amount to a criminal act. Test for gross: Behaviour that is so bad that it deserves criminal punishment rather than civil compensation.
• Risk of Death


  There must have been a serious and obvious risk of death: R v Kuddas (2019) - K ran a takeaway and victim ordered via Just Eat stating nut and prawn allergies. Food provided contained nut proteins and the victim suffered reaction and died. K initially convicted of m/s. Appeal succeeded as he had not seen the allergy on the order. The CA confirmed that for a conviction it must be proved on the facts that at the time of the breach there was a serious and obvious risk of death.
• The usual rules of causation also apply as the prosecution must prove that the gross negligence caused the death.