INV MAN- Gross negligence manslaughter

• Gross Negligence Manslaughter (GNMS)


  If D negligently causes V's death, they would be charged with gross negligence manslaughter rather than unlawful act manslaughter
• Negligence


  Acting below the standard of a reasonable person, thereby causing harm or death to another
• Negligence is an objective test, not based on defendant's belief or psychological make-up or state of mind
• Test for GNMS


  Would a reasonably prudent person have foreseen that D's action would pose an obvious and serious risk of death to V?
• To ground a charge of manslaughter, the negligence must be gross (higher than the regular negligence in tort law) or criminally negligent
• Lord Atkins: ''Simple lack of care such as will constitute civil liability is not enough: for purposes of criminal law there are degrees of negligence…and a very high degree of negligence is required to be proved before the felony is established''
• Gross negligence


  Although D's act is apparently lawful, they have carried it out in a manner that has rendered it criminal
• Lord Hewart in R v Bateman [1925]: 'D's act has shown '…such disregard for the life and safety of others as to amount to a crime against the state and conduct deserving punishment''
• Unlike unlawful act manslaughter, gross negligence manslaughter can be committed by omission
• Key Elements of GNMS (R v Adamako [1994])


  • Duty of Care
  • Breach of that Duty
  • Reasonable foresight
  • Breach causing death
  • Gross negligence
• Duty of Care


  A question of law. Ordinary negligence principles apply
• Courts to apply precedents where statutes and caselaw have already established such a duty (doctor/patient, occupier/visitor, driver/passenger/road users, employer/employee)
• Caparo three-stage test


  Reasonable foreseeability of harm, proximity of relationship, fairness and justice and reasonableness
• Breach of Duty

  D breaches their duty of care if their conduct falls below the standard of care expected of a reasonable person. It is an objective test.
• Reasonable Foresight


  It must be proved that it was reasonably foreseeable that D's breach of their duty of care would pose an obvious and serious risk of death, not just of serious illness or harm
• Reasonable Foresight cases


  • R v Winterton [2018]
  • R v Broughton [2020]
• Causation


  It must be proved that D's breach, and nothing else caused V's death. Factual causation (but for test) and legal causation (substantial and operating cause).
• Gross Negligence


  More than mere negligence is needed. D's conduct must be peculiarly bad and reprehensible that it would be safe to conclude that it amounts to gross negligence that is criminally punishable
• Lord Judge CJ in Misra and Srivastava (2003): 'The decision whether the conduct was criminal is described not as 'the' test, but as 'a' test as to how far the conduct in question must depart from accepted standards to be 'characterised as criminal'. The question for the jury is not whether the defendant's negligence was gross, and whether, additionally, it was a crime, but whether his behaviour was grossly negligent and consequently criminal.'
• Lord Hewart CJ in R v Bateman [1925]: 'In order to establish criminal liability the facts must be such that, in the opinion of the jury, the negligence of the accused went beyond a mere matter of compensation between subjects and showed such disregard for the life and safety of others as to amount to a crime against the state and conduct deserving of punishment.'
• Subjectively Reckless Manslaughter

  D would be guilty if while acting, they knew that their act would pose a high risk of death or serious harm to another person, and despite that knowledge, they went ahead to carry out their act, which led to V's death