Gross Negligence Manslaughter

Introduction

D does not have malice aforethought and may be guilty of involuntary manslaughter.

1. The defendant owes v a duty of care

The requirements for GNM were set out in Adomako. First, D must have owed V a duty of care. This has been interpreted in the same way as the civil law of negligence.
[In Evans it was stated a duty of care exists where D has created or contributed to a state of affaris which he knows, or ought reasonably to know, has become life threatening]
[There will be a duty of care even where D and V are engaged in criminal activity (Wacker)]

2. The defendant has breached that duty

Secondly, D must have breached the duty. The breach can be by an act or omission.
The test for breach of duty is the same as in civil law. D must have fallen below the standard of care expected of the ‘reasonable man’ performing the activity involved (Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks)

3. The breach must cause death

Thirdly, the breach must cause death. This means factual and legal causation must be proven.

4. There is an objective risk of death

Fourthly, the breach must create an objective risk of death, not just of harm (Misra).

5. The negligence is ‘gross’

The last requirement is that the negligence is ‘gross’ (Bateman confirmed in Adomako). Whether the negligence is gross is a matter for the jury to decide. Does the negligence go ‘beyond a mere matter of compensation and show such disregard for the life and safety of others as to amount to a crime against the state and conduct deserving punishment’?