gross negligence manslaughter

• the defendent would be charged with amnslaughter. the maximum sentance for manslaughter is life imprisonment. however unlike murder, the judge has discretion to impose a sentance suitble to the circumstances of the case
• gross negligence manslaughter is committed when the defendent owes a duty of care to the victim, but breaches the duty in a very negligent way that causes the death of the victim and the degree of negligence by the defendent is sufficently serious as to make him criminally liable for the death. it can be committed by an act or omisson
• to establish gross negligence manslaughter key requirements must be met. adomako and broughton
• firstly, the defendent must owe a duty of caer to the victim. the ordinary prinsiples of duty of care should apply (donoghue v stevenson). a duty of care is owed to those 'so closely and directly affected my act that i might ought reasonable to have them in contemplation as being so effected when i am directing my mind to the act and omissions which is called into question'
• secondly, once a duty of care has been astablished, it must be proven that the defendent has breached this duty. did the defendent do or fail to do something below the standered duty of care of the reasonable person in this position
• thirdly, there must be a serious and obvious risk of death at the time of the breach. serious harm = a risk of death. obvious risk = a clear, unabiguous risk, it is immediately clear, or should be clear
• fourthly, it must be reasonably forseeable at the time of the breach that it gave rise to a serious and obvious risk of death. this is an objective test, it does not matter if the defendent did not recognise this, but the risk would have been obvious to a reasonable person in the defendents position
• furthermore, the breach of duty caused or made a significant contribution to the death of the victim. ordinary prinsiples of causation should apply:

  • factual causation 'but for' (pagett)
  • legal caustion - is the defendent the operating and substanctial cause of death (smith)
  • are there any interventing acts which break the chain of causation
• finally, the breach must amount to gross negligence, conduct which is so bad in all circumstances as to be criminal. the fact that the defendent has been negligent is not enough, it must be proven that they have been 'grossly negligent' to convict
• the defendent must have 'showed such regard for life and safty of others as to amount to a crime against the state and conduct deserving punishment'(bateman).
• the jury must decide whether the defendents conduct was 'so bad in all the circumstances' as to constitute gross negligence (akomako)