Gross Negligence Manslaughter

• Leading case; Adomako

  Set out the principles on which gross negligence manslaugter can be proven
• 4 parts 


  There must be a duty of care

  This breach of duty caused death

  The breach was grossly negligent

  Risk of death
• Duty of care


  Principles from Caparo v Dickman apply in establishing a duty of care
• duty of care


  r v wacker:

  the d was liable for the death of the immigrant
• Duty of care 


  R v Singh

  a landlord owing a duty to their tenants
• Duty of care 


  R v Litchfield

  D owed a duty for the safety of the crew
• Duty of care 


  R v Khan and Khan

  Drug dealer and drug user - chain of events and voluntary assumption
• Duty of care

  R v Edwards

  Parent owed a duty of care to their children
• Duty of care 


  R v Finlay

  a scoutmaster where one of the scouts died on a trip

  Official position/voluntary assumption
• Breach of duty caused death


  Fallen below the standards expected of a competent person carrying out the activity

  Lord mackay in Adomako:

  “ the extent to which the D’s conduct departed from the proper standard of care incumben upon him”
• Gross negligence

  Bateman; where the d ‘showed such disregard for the life and safety of others as to amount to a crime’
• Gross negligence

  Adomako; ‘conduct so bad in all the circumstances as to amount to a criminal act or omission’
• risk of death

  R v Misra and Srivastava; confirmed that there should be an obvious risk of death.
• Risk of death 


  R v Rose (Honey and Maria)

  A obvious risk is a present risk which is clear and ambiguous not one which might become apparent on further investigation
• Mens rea

  It does not matter what the d foresaw. The d will be judged by their behaviour rather than their state of mind - there just has to be an obvious risk of death.