Gross Negligence Manslaughter

• Involuntary Manslaughter


  Another way of committing manslaughter, completely different from unlawful act manslaughter as it is committed where the D owes the V a duty of care but breaches that duty in a very negligent way, causing the death of the V
• Gross Negligence Manslaughter (GNM)


  Can be committed through an act or an omission, yet neither must be unlawful
• Test for Gross Negligence Manslaughter (Broughton 2020)


  1. The defendant must owe a duty of care to the victim

  2. The defendant must breach that duty of care

  3. At the time of the breach, there must be a serious and obvious risk of death

  4. It must be reasonably foreseeable at that time that the breach gives rise to a serious and obvious risk of death

  5. The breach must cause or significantly contribute to the death of the victim

  6. The jury must consider that the breach justifies criminal sanction
• Broughton (2020)


  • The V was 24-year-old when she died at Bestival after taking a class A drug which was supplied by her boyfriend, Broughton. He had filmed her reaction to the drug and had been in contact with her family whilst watching her under the influence of drugs, but did not summon any help. She died. Broughton was convicted of her death by way of gross negligence manslaughter by the court of first instance.
• Duty of Care


  A legal obligation to ensure the safety or well being of others
• Duty of Care


  • It must be proven that the D owed the V a duty of care, this is based on the principles of negligence as established in Robinson where it was stated that a duty of care can be established using existing case law precedents
• Cases examples of duty of care situations

  • A doctor owes a duty of a care to their patients (Adomako)
  • A landlord owes a duty of a care to their tenants (Singh)
  • A person owes a duty of a care to their criminal co-conspirators (Wacker)
  • A parent owes a duty of care to their child (Harris and Harris)
  • A chef owes a duty of care to their customers/consumers (R v Kuddus)
• Breach of Duty of Care


  Once a breach of a duty of care has been established, it must be proven that this breach caused, or significantly contributed, to the death of the V, as confirmed in Broughton
• Breach of Duty


  A breach of duty will occur once the D's conduct falls below the standard of the reasonable person
• Whether there is a breach of duty is a factual matter. Did the D negligently do or fail to do something?
• Risk of Death


  At the time of the D's breach of duty there must be a reasonably foreseeable, 'serious and obvious risk of death' for a successful GNM conviction
• R v Kuddus (2019)


  • Mr Kuddus was a chef in an Indian restaurant. An order came through from the victim on Just Eat. The victim had stated on the order form that she had an allergy to nuts. Mr Kuddus was told to complete the order by the restaurant manager. He did not know that the victim had a nut allergy. He used nuts in the meal and it was sent to the victim. The victim died, days later from a severe allergic reaction from the meal. Here there was not a reasonably foreseeable serious and obvious risk of death because Mr. Kuddus did not know about the nut allergy at the time that he made and sent the meal.
• Causation


  It must be proven that the breach caused the death. If there is uncertainty surrounding causation then the D will not be guilty of GNM. Any uncertainties with causation must go in D's favour.
• Factual Causation - would the outcome have occurred 'but for the D's actions'
• Legal Causation - was the D's actions more than a minimal cause of the outcome
• No Intervening Acts - such as medical intervention, victim's own actions, victim's self neglect, 3rd party intervention
• Case Examples


  • Pagett, White, Kimsey, Jordan
• 'Justifies Criminal Sanction'


  It is a matter for the jury to decide whether the conduct of the D was so gross in all the circumstances as to amount to a criminal act or omission that deserves a criminal sanction. The word 'gross' means that the D's actions were so 'flagrant and atrocious', that their actions should amount to a crime.
• R v Cornish (2016)


  • The D was one of the anaesthetists during the V's caesarean section. The V was put under general anaesthetic. After the surgery she was monitored, and the other anaesthetist put her on a face mask, this was the correct procedure that the hospital told them to do. The V had not fully regained consciousness. Both anaesthetists left her to see other patients. She had a lack of oxygen and died from a heart attack later that day. Here the actions of the D were not so gross that they would amount to a crime as they followed all of the correct procedures.
• Mens Rea - the D does not have the intention to kill or cause serious harm. For GNM, the D failed to meet the standards of the reasonable person. What the D intended, or thought, is irrelevant. He will be guilty if he did not act as reasonable person would have done in the circumstances.