gross negligence manslaughter

• Gross Negligence Manslaughter


  Where the defendant owes a duty of care to the victim, but breaches that duty in a very negligent way, causing the death of the victim. It can be committed by either an act or an omission.
• Elements of Gross Negligence Manslaughter

  1. Does the defendant owe the victim a duty of care to the victim

  2. Did the defendant breach that duty of care

  3. Is there a serious and obvious risk of death

  4. Was the serious and obvious risk reasonably foreseeable

  5. Did the breach cause the death of the victim

  6. Is the breach so 'gross' that it is deemed to be criminal
• Gross Negligence Manslaughter definition

  The original case that defined what was needed for gross negligence manslaughter (steps 1,2,5 and 6) was R v Adomako.

  The current leading case is now R v Broughton. This added steps 3 and 4 into being able to establish gross negligence manslaughter.
• 1 Does the defendant owe the victim a duty of care?

  R v Adomako explained that the normal rules for establishing a duty of care can apply in criminal law.

  Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire - 1. is there a duty that exists already through statute?, 2. is there a duty by reason of analogy (similarity between a case)?

  Caparo and Dickman - New duties - 1. foreseeable harm, 2. proximity, 3. fair, just and reasonable.
• 1 Does the defendant owe the victim a duty of care

  R v Singh - landlord responsible for housefire.

  R v Litchfield - Ship owner was responsible for damage to failed engines.

  R v Khan and Khan - Defendant supplied drugs to victim

  R v Evans - state of affairs

  R v Edwards - parents allowed children on railways
• 1 Does the defendant owe the victim a duty of care?

  A duty of care might be able to be assumed.

  Case - R v Wacker
• 2 Did the defendant breach that duty of care

  R v Adomako explained the normal rules establishing a breach of a duty of care apply here.

  Normal standard - judged against a reasonable person

  Professionals - judged by the standard of the profession as a whole - Bolam v Barnet Hospital

  Learners - learners are judged at the standard of the competent, more experienced person.

  Children - judged at the standard of the defendant's age.
• 3 Is there a serious and obvious risk of death


  There needs to be a serious and obvious risk of death.

  Case - R v Misra
• 4 Was the serious and obvious risk foreseeable

  At the time of the breach of the duty of care, it must be reasonably foreseeable that there is a serious and obvious risk of death arising from the defendant's conduct.

  Case - R v Broughton
• 5 Did the breach cause the death of the victim - causation

  The unlawful act must cause the death. We do this by looking at causation.

  • Factual causation - 'but for test' - R v Pagett
  • Legal Causation - 'more than a slight or trifling link' + 'more than minimal' - R v Kimsey + R v Hughes
  • Intervening act - Medical intervention + Victim's own act - R v Jordan + R v Roberts.
• 6 Is the breach so 'gross' that it is deemed to be criminal


  The negligence must be 'gross'.

  Case - R v Bateman

  For behaviour to be 'gross', the jury has to decide whether, having the regard to the risk of death involved, that the conduct of the defendant was so bad in all circumstances that it would be criminal.
• Mens rea


  The defendant will be judged by their behaviour rather than their state of mind.

  Therefore, if their behaviour can be shown to be negligent, then the mens rea for gross negligence manslaughter will be met (R v Adomako)

  We have to look at whether the defendant failed to meet the standards of the reasonable man.