gross negligence manslaughter

• where was gross negligence defined?

  it is common law
• what type of manslaughter is gross negligence manslaughter?

  involuntary manslaughter
• what was the leading case for gross negligence manslaughter?

  adamako
• who gave the original four elements of gross negligence manslaughter?

  lord mackay
• what is the first element?

  the defendant owes the victim a duty of care
• what did adamako confirm about element 1?

  ordinary principles of negligence should be appled; a doctor owes his patients a duty of care
• what did evans confirm?

  a duty of care will arise where the defendant creates a dangerous situation which they ought reasonably to have known was life-threatening; defendant provided victim with heroin which created a duty of care
• what did smith confirm?

  spouses owe each other a duty of care
• what did singh confirm?

  a landlord owes tenants a duty of care
• what are the caparo v dickman tests to establish a duty of care?


  1 - reasonable foreseeability; 2 - proximity between defendant and victim; 3 - is it fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty
• what was confirmed in wacker?

  just because the defendant is acting criminally, does not prevent a duty of care
• what was confirmed in willoughby?

  duty of care can arise from multiple factors
• what is the second element?

  the defendant must have breached his duty
• what did adamako confirm about element 2?

  the ordinary principles of negligence apply
• what did blyth v birmingham waterworks confirm?

  a defendant has breached his duty if he has done something that the reasonable man would not, or fails to do something that the reasonable man would do
• what is the third element?

  the breach creates a reasonably foreseeable, serious and obvious risk of death
• what is the first thing r v broughton confirmed about element 3?


  (iii) at the time of the breach there was a serious and obvious risk of death. serious, in this context, qualifies the nature of the risk of death as something much more than minimal or remote. risk of injury or illness, even serious injury or illness, is not enough. an obvious risk is one that is present, clear, and unambiguous. it is immediately apparent, striking and glaring rather than something that might become apparent on further investigation
• what is the second thing that r v broughton confirmed about element 3?

  (iv) it was reasonably foreseeable at the time of the breach of the duty that the breach gave rise to a serious and obvious risk of death
• what is the fourth element?

  the defendant’s breach of duty must have caused the death of the victim
• what must happen for the defendant to be the factual cause?

  the death must have not been able to occur if the defendant had fulfilled the duty to the standard of the reasonable man
• what was confirmed in r v broughton about element 4?


  medical evidence stated there was a 90% chance of survival if there had not been a breach but this did not prove the defendant caused the death beyond a reasonable doubt because of the 10% chance that she died anyway
• what was confirmed in evans about element 4?


  self-injection is not a novus actus interveniens in gross negligence manslaughter; the defendant’s breach occurred following the self-injection
• what is the fifth element?


  it must be proved that the negligence was gross
• what is the difference between gross negligence and civil negligence?

  gross negligence is a much higher standard than civil negligence
• what was confirmed in andrews?

  a lack of care which would constitute civil negligence is not enough
• what was confirmed in bateman?


  gross negligence is ‘such disregard for the life and safety of others as to amount to a crime against the state and conduct deserving of punishment
• what was confirmed in adamako about element 5?


  whether… the conduct of the defendant was so bad in all the circumstances as to amount… to a criminal act or omission