Involuntary Manslaughter: Gross Negligence Manslaughter

What is goss negligence manslaughter?

When the D killed the V but lacks the required malice aforethought for murder or the mens rea for UAM

What case redefined Gross Negligence Manslaughter (and what as)?

The case of Broughton (2020):

D supplied drugs for himself and gf. Gf had a bad reaction and D failed to contact emergency services. Gf died, however D was not liable as there was no evidence she would have survived anyway.

1. The D owed the V a duty of care

2. There was a breach of duty

3. There was a serious and obvious risk of death

4. The breach caused the V’s death

5. The act is grossly negligent.

1. Duty of Care

the D must have had a legal duty of care over the victim. This uses the neighbour principle established in Donoghue v Stevenson.

DoC: Contract of employment

Pittwood: D failed to close gate and was liable for the death of a driver.

DoC: Police to public

Dytham: D failed to stop a beating and V died. D was liable

DoC: Criminal enterprises

Wacker: D smuggled immigrants who suffocated in transit. D was liable as he had a duty over them.

DoC: duty arising from a relationship

Gibbins and Proctor: parents seperated children and one starved to death. They were liable.

DoC: Assumed duty

Stone and Dobinson: D failed to care for elderly sister and she starved. D was liable

DoC to limit harm caused

Miller: Homeless man caused a fire and failed to stop it from spreading. He was liable.

DoC: Landlord to tenant

Singh: Landlord did not check gas safety and was liable.

Doc: Confirmed the case of Miller

Evans: Parents gave V heroin and V had an overdose. Parents failed to act and were liable as they failed to limit harm caused.

2. Breach of Duty

the breach must be according to the standards of the ordinary, reasonable man with the same level of expertise and skill.

• Becker: Patient died from an overdose of a drug prescribed by her doctor. HELD: doctor was not liable as the doctor prescribing drugs did not fall below the standards of the reasonable doctor.

3. A serious and obvious risk of death

• The jury must conclude that a reasonable, prudent person would have foreseen a risk of death, not just of injury.

• Rose: D was an optometrist who failed to notice a disease in a boy’s eye who later died. HELD: she was not liable as ‘‘a mere possibility of something life threatening is not the same as an obvious risk of death’’

4. The breach must cause death

Normal causation rules are applied here.

• Causation in fact - ‘but for’ - White

• Causation in Law - Was D morally responsible? was D more than a minimal cause? Did D accelerate the death? - Pagett

• No NAIs:

  -Victims treatment of self: Dear, Wallace

  -Contributory negligence: Longbottom

  -Act of third party: Jordan

  -Escape of victim: Roberts

• Eggshell/thin skull rule: Blaue.

5. Grossly negligent.

D’s act or omission must have been ‘‘grossly negligent’’. (Adomako)

Bateman held that ‘‘the negligence […] showed such disregard for the life and safety of others to amount to a crime against the state’’

• Adomako: D was an anaesthesist. He failed to notice a loose oxygen tube when the reasonable doctor would have noticed within 15 secs. HELD: liable for GNM

• Cornish: Mrs Francis Capuccini died in care of the D. HELD: the negligence must be ‘‘so flagrant and atrocious, it would consequently amount to a crime.’’