Gross Negligence Manslaughter

• Gross Negligence Manslaughter

  Offence outlined in the decision in R v Adamako and clarified in R v Broughton which set out a 6-part test
• 1. 6 part test for GNM

  1. Defendant owed victim a duty of care

  2. Defendant breached that duty of care (act or omission)

  3. At time of breach, there was a serious and obvious risk of death

  4. Breach gave rise to a serious and obvious risk of death that was reasonably foreseeable

  5. Defendant was the cause of the death

  6. Breach was truly and extraordinarily bad and so reprehensible as to justify criminal punishment and therefore grossly negligent in the eyes of the jury
• Duty of care in GNM

  D only owes a duty of care for failing to act (omission) if they had a responsibility to act
• When D has a responsibility to act in GNM

  • Statutory duty (by act of parliament)
  • Public duty
  • Special relationship
  • Voluntary assumed duty
  • D created the dangerous situation in the first place
• Robinson v CC West Yorkshire Police

  Case that supports duty of care in GNM
• In Robinson v CC West Yorkshire Police, a 76-year-old woman sustained injuries when she was knocked to the ground by a drug dealer in his escape from arrest. Two police officers fell on to the claimant. She tried to bring action against the police.
• Breach of duty in GNM

  Compared to: Ordinary people, Professionals (Bolan v Friern Trust), Learners (Nettleship v Western), Children (Mullins v Richards)
• Ordinary person


  Compared to the reasonable person
• Professional


  Compared to the competent body of professional opinion
• Learner


  Compared to the competent person
• Children

  Compared to other children of the same age