Gross negligence manslaughter

• Definition

  • When the defendant owes the victim a duty of care but breaches the duty in such a way that someone dies as a result
• R v Adomako - R v Broughton 6 part test:

  1. D owes an existing duty of care to victim (R v Kiddus)
  2. The D negligently breached that duty
  3. At time of breach there was a serious and obvious risk of death
  4. It was reasonably forseeable at the time of breach
  5. The breach caused or made significant contribution to death of victim
  6. Circumstances were truly exceptionally bad + so reprehensible it is grossly negligent + requires criminal sanctions
• Duty of Care

  Caparo v Dickman 3 part test:

  1. proximity of relationship
  2. reasonable forseeability of harm
  3. fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care

  R v Kiddus
• Breach of duty


  Conduct fell below reasonable standard of:

  1. Reasonable man (Blyth v Birmingham waterworks)
  2. If the D is a professional, what the reasonable competent body of that profession would do (e.g. Bolam test - doctor)

  • If D is a child - reasonably competent child of that age + gender (Mullin v Richards)
  • If D is inexperienced - must still achieved required standard - that of a reasonably competent person with that skill (e.g. a learner driver)
• Serious + obvious risk of death

  • Measured objectively (R v Singh)
• Caused death

  • Factual and legal causation needs to be proved (R v Pagget)
  • If there is an intervening act that breaks the chain of causation - D will not be liable for manslaughter
• Action was gross

  • D has shown such a disregard for life + safety of others the D's conduct deserves criminal punishment
  • No need to prove MR (Ag ref No2 1999)