gnm

• Gross negligence manslaughter


  Type of involuntary manslaughter defined in R v Adomako (1995) case, requires: a duty of care, breach of duty that caused death and a risk of death, mens rea = gross negligence (matter for the jury)
• Gross negligent manslaughter


  Differs from constructive manslaughter in that it can be committed by omission, does not have to be an unlawful act, and there must be a risk of death rather than a risk of some harm
• Duty of care

  You owe a duty of care to 'persons so closely and directly affected by my acts or omissions', it is a question of law for the judge to decide
• Courts have been reluctant to establish a duty of care in certain circumstances, e.g. a pimp who did not owe a duty of care to a prostitute (R v Khan and Khan 1998), a man who left his drunk friend to sleep in a car who later died (Lewin v CPS 2002)
• Breach of duty caused death


  Defendant has fallen below the standard of care expected of the 'ordinary reasonable man', the breach must be serious, rules of causation still apply, jury decides if the defendant's conduct departed from the proper standard of care
• A patient died from an overdose of the painkillers that the defendant (a doctor) had prescribed
• The doctor was not guilty of gross negligent manslaughter, as he had not fallen below the standard of care expected of the ordinary reasonable doctor
• Breach of duty caused a risk of death

  The circumstances must be such that a reasonably prudent person would have foreseen a serious and obvious risk not merely of injury or even serious injury but death
• Not everyone who owes a duty of care and has breached his or her duty will be convicted of gross negligent manslaughter. There must also be an obvious or foreseen risk of death
• R V Adomako did not want to provide a better definition of mens rea, as he was worried that a jury would not understand it
• R V Bateman (1925) Lord Heward CJ said 'the facts must be such that, in the opinion of the jury, the negligence of the accused went beyond a mere matter of compensation between subjects and showed such disregard for the life and safety of others as to amount to a crime against the State and conduct deserving punishment
• The physical conduct of the defendant may be enough to prove gross negligence without the need for the jury to consider a mens rea
• In Broughton, the defendant supplied the drugs to his girlfriend, she had a bad reaction. Her condition deteriorated to the point her life was in obvious danger. He failed to get assistance = charged with gross negligence. Held - causation not proved on the evidence i.e. beyond reasonable doubt
• In R V Singh (1999), the victim was a tenant who died of carbon monoxide poisoning. Held: it was held that there was a foreseeable risk of death for the landlord to be liable
• In Litchfield (1997), the defendant was the owner and master of a sailing ship, he sailed knowing that the engines might fail due to the contamination to the fuel. The ship was blown onto rocks and three crew members died. D owed a duty of care
• In Kuddus, the restaurant owner did not know of the peanut allergy - not owed a duty of a cure
• In Zaman, the restaurant owner did know of the peanut allergy, so a duty of care was owed