gross negligence manslaughter

• R v Adomako, R v Broughton (actus reus tests for gross negligence manslaughter)

  1. Does D owe a duty of care?

  2. Did D breach the duty of care?

  3. Is there a serious and obvious risk of death?

  4. Was the serious and obvious risk foreseeable?

  5. Did the breach cause V's death?

  6. Is the breach 'so gross' that it is criminal?
• Donoghue v Stevenson


  Neighbour principle
• R v Robinson


  A duty of care is already established
• Caparo v Dickman


  3 part test for duty of care:

  1. Foreseeable harm (Kent v Griffiths)

  2. Proximity (Bourhill v Young)

  3. Fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty (Hill v CC of West Yorkshire)
• R v Adomako


  Tort rules apply to criminal law
• Paris v Stepney Borough Council


  Special characteristics may be present
• Bolam


  Professionals are judged by the standard of the profession as a whole
• Nettleship v Weston


  Learners are judged at the standard of the competent person
• R v Misra and Srivastava


  Must be a serious and obvious risk of death
• R v Broughton


  Risk must be foreseeable
• R v Pagett


  Factual causation: 'but for' test
• R v Kimsey


  Legal causation: more than a slight or trifling link
• R v Hughes


  Legal causation: more than minimal
• R v Jordan


  Medical intervention (intervening act)
• R v Roberts


  Victim's own act (intervening act)
• R v Batesman


  The breach must be 'so gross' that it is criminal
• Mens rea for gross negligence manslaughter

  D is judged on their act not state of mind