GNM - Homicide

What is the case law precedent that outlines the 5 requirements for GNM and what are those 5 requirements?

R v Adamako outlines the 5 requirements needed for GM, which are -

1. Defendant owed the victim an existing duty of care

2. Defendant negligently breached that duty of care

3. It was reasonably foreseeable that the breach of that duty gave rise to an obvious and serious risk of death

4. The breach caused the death of the victim

5. Circumstances of the breach were exceptionally bad and reprehensible that it amounted to gross negligence and requires criminal sanction

R v Gemma Evans expands on duty of care (1st requirement for GNM), what is the context and what is said?

Context → The defendant bought some heroin and gave it to her sister. Her sister self injected the heroin and then developed symptoms which the defendant recognised as being consistent with an overdose. The appellant and her mother decided not to seek medical assistance for fear of getting into trouble. The sister died.

Outcome → The court stated that a duty of care is a matter of law and whether the duty existed on the facts of the case is a matter for the jury

R v Wacker as an example of duty of care (1st requirement of GNM)?

Context → The driver had a lorry filled with illegal immigrants who had later died due to the air vents being closed. The defendant/driver argued that he did not have a duty of care.

Outcome → The court concluded that the driver did have a duty of care to the illegal immigrants.

R v Gemma Evans on additional duties that give rise to duty of care (1st requirement of GNM), what does it say?

R v Gemma Evans concludes that a duty of care arises when D created/contributed to the situation where they reasonably knew it would have been life-threatening.

What is breach of duty defined as (2nd requirement of GNM)?

It can be an act or omission

R v Singh expands 3rd component of GNM (It was reasonably foreseeable that the breach of that duty gave rise to an obvious and serious risk of death), what does it state?

R v Singh outlined it can’t be merely a injury or serious injury, it has to be death

R v Misra expands 3rd component of GNM (It was reasonably foreseeable that the breach of that duty gave rise to an obvious and serious risk of death), what does it state?

R v Misra states that it clearly relates to the risk of death

R v Gemma Evans expands 3rd component of GNM (It was reasonably foreseeable that the breach of that duty gave rise to an obvious and serious risk of death), what does it state?

R v Gemma Evans emphasised that D knows, or should reasonably to know, that the situation has become life-threatening”

R v Rudling expands ‘serious and obvious risk’ within 3rd component of GNM (It was reasonably foreseeable that the breach of that duty gave rise to an obvious and serious risk of death), what does it state and the context?

Context → A child has a rare condition, the doctor stated over the phone that if the symptoms got worse, the child can be examined on Monday, but the child died before that of Adison’s disease. However, the doctor was merely told symptoms and could not assess the child’s condition in person to understand the severity and risk of it.

• R v Rudling expands on ‘serious and obvious risk’ and stated it has to have a ‘present risk which is clear and unambiguous’

R v Rose expands ‘serious and obvious risk’ within 3rd component of GNM (It was reasonably foreseeable that the breach of that duty gave rise to an obvious and serious risk of death), what does it state and the context?

Context → The optometrist failed to notice abnormality in the back of the eye which led to the child having a swelling of a nerve and died. The optometrist argued that they did not have those images of the child’s eyes and was given another person’s eye available to them on the system accidentally.

• R v Rose outlined that a reasonable risk of SOMETHING is not the same as a recognisable risk of death

• Serious and obvious risk must be assessed at the time and knowledge of the breach

R v Kuddus expands ‘serious and obvious risk’ within 3rd component of GNM (It was reasonably foreseeable that the breach of that duty gave rise to an obvious and serious risk of death), what does it state?

According to R v Kuddus, the jury must be sure that -

1. there was a serious risk of death

2. there was an obvious risk of death and

3. that a reasonable person in D’s position would have foreseen that serious and obvious risk

What test do we apply when addressing the 4th requirement of GNM (the breach caused the death of the victim)?

Ordinary rules of causation apply

What is the test/question when addressing the 4th requirement of GNM (the breach caused the death of victim) in regards to negligent omission?

You must apply R v Morby and/or R v Broughton.

The question you asked in relation to negligent omission is “would the victim have survived? NOT might they have survived”

R v Sellu on 4th requirement of GNM (the breach caused the death of the victim), what is the context and outcome?

Context → The complainant had undergone knee surgery but whilst recovering developed severe stomach pain, and as a result, the complainant was referred to the defendant. The defendant had committed several errors which ultimately combined to cause the complainant’s death.

Outcome → The defendant’s conviction for Gross Negligence manslaughter was upheld as in accordance to the test outlined in R v Morby [1882] in regards to whether the omission didn’t occur, would the complainant would have survived.

R v Broughton on 4th requirement of GNM (the breach caused the death of the victim), what is the context and outcome?

Context → D had provided his girlfriend with drugs after they had went to a forest away from a concert event, his girlfriend then started having seizures and reacting negatively to the drugs and D had been too late in contacting and providing medical aid or assistance to help save her.

Outcome → In court, it was concluded that the girlfriend was only 90% likely to have survived if medical intervention had been alerted earlier by D, but the court argued that the causation element of D’s charge was not satisfied and 10% likeliness that she would have died even with medical intervention arriving on time was not CERTAIN enough within the law to say that the D’s actions led to her death, so his charge was lifted.

R v Bateman on 5th requirement of GNM (the circumstances of the breach were truly exceptionally bad and so reprehensible as to justify the conclusion that it amounted to gross negligence and required criminal sanction), what is meant by?

R v Bateman stated in regards to defining ‘gross negligence’ it should be “such disregard for the life and safety of others as to amount to a crime”

R v Adamako on 5th requirement of GNM (the circumstances of the breach were truly exceptionally bad and so reprehensible as to justify the conclusion that it amounted to gross negligence and required criminal sanction), what does it outline?

The conduct was so bad in all circumstances amounting to a criminal act or omission

AG’s Ref (No 2 of 1999) on 5th requirement of GNM (the circumstances of the breach were truly exceptionally bad and so reprehensible as to justify the conclusion that it amounted to gross negligence and required criminal sanction), what does it mean?

AG’s reference outlined that prosecution does not have to prove any particular state of mind on the part of D

R v Sellu on 5th requirement of GNM on issuing jury guidance on how to be directed on GNM?

They need to identify the line that seperates ‘very serious mistakes (from) […] departure from the standard of a compotent doctor amounted to being criminal”