Gross Negligent Manslaughter

• elements to GNM:

  1. D owed V a duty of care
  2. D breached that duty
  3. There was a serious and obvious risk of death
  4. It was reasonably foreseeable that the breach would give rise to the risk of death
  5. The breach was the cause of death
  6. In the view of the jury, the breach was grossly negligent
• R v Pittwood [1902]


  Contractual duty
• R v Gibbins and Proctor [1918]


  Duty arising from a relationship of dependency.
• R v Stone and Dobinson [1977]


  Duty arising from a voluntary assumption of responsibility.
• R v Dytham [1979]


  Duty from a position in public office.
• R v Miller [1983]


  Duty from creating a dangerous event.
• Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks [1856]


  A breach is failing to do something a reasonable man would do.
• Bolam v Friern Barnet HMC [1957]


  Profession/skill raises the standard of care expected. D compared to professional doing the same skill.
• Mullin v Richards [1998]


  Age lowers the standard of care expected. D compared to someone of the same age doing the same.
• Nettleship v Weston [1971]


  Inexperience doesn't affect standard of care expected. D compared to a competent person doing the same.
• Risk Factors:

  1. Size of the risk
  2. Seriousness of the risk
  3. Practicability of precautions
  4. Potential benefit of the risk
• R v Rose [2017]


  An obvious risk is a present risk which is clear and unambiguous, not one which might become apparent on further investigation.
• The serious and obvious risk of death must be foreseeable to a reasonable person. It‘s irrelevant whether D could or not.
• R v Broughton [2020]


  This case confirms the elements required to prove GNM.
• Robinson v CCoWY [2018]


  If a similar case owed a duty in the past, the current case is likely to owe a duty too.
• Paris v SBC [1951]


  The reasonable person takes more care where potential harm to V is more serious. Seriousness of the risk.
• Latimer v AEC [1953]


  The reasonable person would take all practical steps to prevent damage. Practicability of precautions.
• Watt v HCC [1954]


  The reasonable person would take on the risk if the risk is outweighed by a significant benefit. Potential benefit of the risk.
• Miller v Jackson [1977]


  The reasonable person takes more care where there is a higher chance of damage. Size of the risk.
• The jury must consider if the circumstances of the breach were truly exceptionally bad as to require criminal sanction. GNM is difficult to prove.