IM: Gross Negligence Manslaughter (GNM)

• Involuntary Manslaughter = Individual Offences:

  • Unlike voluntary manslaughter, with involuntary manslaughter the offence will not be charged with murder. Instead they are charged with:
  • Unlawful Act/ Constructive Manslaughter
  • Gross Negligence Manslaughter
• Unlawful Act/ Constructive Manslaughter:

  • The defendant committed an unlawful and dangerous act which caused death.
  • The defendant did not intend or foresee death.
• Gross Negligence Manslaughter:

  • The defendant had a responsibility and failed in carrying out that responsibility, causing death.
  • The defendant did not intend death to occur.
• Gross Negligence Manslaughter - is a common law offence. Current leading case:

  • DPP v Adomako 1994:
  • An anesthetist nurse was in charge of checking he patient's vital signs during a routine eye operation.
  • The oxygen tube became disconnected and the defendant did not notice for 6 minutes.
  • The patient died as a result of lack of oxygen.
• DPP v Adomaki 1994:

  • Requirements for Gross Negligence Manslaugher (GNM) were decided in this case:

  1. A duty of care
  2. Breach of duty of care
  3. Reasonably foreseeable risk of death
  4. Causes death
  5. Negligence is gross
• Requirements:

  • Duty of Care
  • Breach of that Duty
  • Reasonably Foreseeable Risk of Death
  • Causes Death
  • Negligence is 'Gross'
• Duty of Care:

  • Means the D had a responsibility (duty) to care for the victim.
  • This is a concept which is very commonly used in civil law.
  • There are certain types of relationships which will always give rise to a Duty of Care.
• Duty of Care:

  Defendant -> Owes a duty of care to... -> Case example

  • Parent -> Child -> Edwards 2001
  • Doctor/ Nurse -> Patient -> Adomako 1994
  • Landlord -> Tenant -> Singh 1999
  • Employer -> Employee -> Dean 2002
• Duty of Care:

  • R v Wacker 2003
  • R v Litchfield 1998
  • R v Evans 2009
  • R v Willoughby 2004
• R v Wacker 2003:

  • A lorry driver was transporting 60 illegal immigrants into the UK. He closed the vent on his lorry whilst boarding a ferry. He forgot to open the vent until after the 10 hour ferry crossing and 58 of the immigrants suffocated to death.
  • Held: He still owed them a duty of care, even though they were involved in a criminal act. He was guilty.
• R v Litchfield 1998:

  • The captain of a ship was aware that there were problems with the ship's engine. He chose to ignore this and set sail. The ship crashed and 3 crew died.
  • Held: He owed his crew and all passengers a duty of care. He was guilty of GNM.
• R v Evans 2009:

  • A general rule is: D will be seen to owe a duty of care wherever D's conduct carries a foreseeable risk to those around him/ her.
• R v Willoughby 2004:

  • Who decides if there is a duty of care?

  1. Judge decides if there is evidence capable of showing a duty of care.
  2. Jury decides if a duty of care actually exists in the circumstances.
• DPP v Adomako 1994:

  • The test is here to ask whether D's conduct fell below that of a reasonable person in his/ her position.
• Breach of Duty can be through an act or an omission:

  • Evans: D supplied heroin to her sister. V, who self-injected and died of an overdose. D had failed to call an ambulance so was found guilty of GNM.
  • Singh: D was V's landlord who knew there was an issue with the gas boiler but did not fix it. V died of carbon monoxide poisoning due to a gas leak from the boiler. D guilty of GNM due to omission - failure to fix the boiler.
• Rose: D was a doctor who failed to diagnose a very rare condition in a young boy who then died. She was not guilty of GNM as there was no obvious risk of death.

  Kuddus: D was a chef who cooked a takeaway for V, who had been ordered on Just Eat. V died of nut allergy. This had been mentioned briefly in order but not made clear to D. Overturned on appeal as no obvious risk of death.
• Causation:

  • There needs ot be factual causation. This is established using but for test, which asks if the outcome would have happened without D's actions (R v White).
  • There is legal causation. D's actions must be more than de minimis (R v Kimsey) and must be an operating and substantial cause of death (R v Smith). There must be no new intervening acts which break the chain of causation (e.g. daft and unforeseeable actions of the victim - R v Williams and Davis) and the thin skull rule also applied (R v Blaue).
  • R v Broughton 2020
• R v Broughton 2020:

  • For medical cases causation rules must prove V would have survived, not just that there was a chance of survival.
  • V died from effects of a Class A drug she took at Festival. Her boyfriend supplied the drug and filmed her reaction but failed to get timely medical help when her condition deteriorated.
  • On appeal, he found not guilty, as there was not enough proof she would have survived had help been earlier.
• Gross Negligence:

  • The jury must decide that the negligence was so bad that it is considered to be "gross"
  • Bateman 1925 - D's actions "went beyond a mere matter of compensation"
  • Adomako 1994 - D's actions wee bad enough to justify a criminal conviction
  • Sellu 2016 - This is for the jury to decide based on the direction of the judge.