gross negligence manslaughter

• when does GNM arise ?

  GNM arises when Ds conduct is seriously negligent and that negligence causes death

  
  

  it can be committed by an act or omission, neither of which have to be unlawful
• leading case of GNM

  Adomako 1994 ( restated and updated in broughton 2020 )

  
  

  - D was anaesthetist and failed to notice disconnected oxygen tube

  - so V had heart attack and suffered of brain damage a died 6 months later

  - they said that a competent anaesthetist would have noticed this within 15 sec and Ds failure to act was abysmal

  - convicted of GNM and upheld by House of Lords
• 6 parts to the definition

  1) a duty if care

  2) breach if that duty

  3) a serious obvious risk of death

  4) reasonable foresight

  5) causation

  6) negligence is 'gross
• explain the 1st part ( duty of care )

  first established in Donoghue v Stevenson

  - Singh ( D a landlord of property in which faulty gas fire caused death of tenants it was recognised D had a duty to manage and maintain the property properly )

  - Wacker ( D agreed ti bring 60 illegal immigrants to England. D closed the vent at certain times which was supplying oxygen to them. 58 were found dead. Ds conviction of manslaughter was upheld by CA. D knew safety of immigrants dependent on his own actions in relation to the vent and he clearly assumed duty of care.
• was that duty breached

  LOWE - The D must breach their duty of care, meaning their conduct falls below the standards of the reasonable person in same position.

  The breach can be an omission or action by defendant
• 3&4) a serious and obvious risk of death with reasonable foresight

  - the test in GNMS has to be risk of death, its not sufficient to show risk of bodily injury

  - at time of breach of duty of care there must be serious obvious risk of death

  - at time of breach of duty of care, it must be reasonably foreseeable that there a serious obvious risk of death arisng from Ds conduct
• reasonable foresight of serious and obvious risk of death case?

  Misra and another

  - V had operation on knee

  - 2 senior doctore failed to treat V for an infection and he died

  - Ds convicted but appealed

  The CA stated that Adamako had clearly laid down elements required

  Ds conviction upheld

  - the GNMS test involves a consideration of risk of death
• 5) Causation


  - but for Ds actions V wouldnt have died - R V white - factual causation

  - The Ds actions were a more than minimal cause of death of v - more than slight or trifling link -R v Kimsey (legal causation)

  
  

  Intervening acts - an intervening act could potentially BCOC

  - poor medical treatment

  - actions of third party

  - Vs own actions ....
• 6) negligence mustbe gross

  - gross means conducts so bad that D is criminally liable in eyes of jury and conviction is justified ( as in adomako)

  
  

  - 'was Ds conduct so flagrant and atrocious, it would consequently amount to a crime' for jury to decide

  ( bateman )