Criminal law: Gross Negligence Manslaughter

Define GNM

D is ostensibly acting lawfully, and not dependant on demonstrating an unlawful act was committed

Elements of GNM

D owes DoC to a the V

Breached their DoC

Breached caused death

D’s conduct so bad in all circumstances as to amount in jury’s opinion to a crime

There was a serious risk of death

Duty of Care

Ordinary rules of negligence apply

Use omission categories to establish it

R v Stone & Dobinson

S and Dobinson allowed an ill and unstable sister to live n their house

Sister died as failed to call for medical assistance

Breach of Duty

Must reach the standard of a reasonable competent person

R v Winter

V was asked to move out of the way of fireworks by firemen and owner of land

Disobeyed these orders but both D’s were still liable

Gross negligence

Action must be so wrong in all circumstances as to be deserving of criminal punishment

Must go beyond civil liability and more compensation

R v Bateman

Showed such disregard for the life and safety of others as to amount to a crime

R v Adomako

Reasonable man in the D’s position would have foreseen a serious and obvious risk of death

Breach of duty was so far below the standard of an expected person in D’s position

Risk of death

At time of breach a reasonable person would have foreseen a serious and obvious risk of death not just injury of any degree

R v Rudling

There may be numerous remote possibilities of very rare conditions which cannot be eliminated but which do not present a serious risk of death

R v Rose

Must be an obvious risk of death at the time that the DoC was breached

R v Khan and Khan

15 years old girl overdosed on heroin

D’s convicted of GNM as held that drug dealers don’t owe a DoC to call medical assistance for clients

R v Evans

Older sister and mother convicted of GNM

Supplied younger sister with heroin who overdosed but medical assistance was not called as thought they would get in trouble

Younger sister died

MR for GNM

No evidence for intent to be convicted of GNM

R v DPP ex-parte Jones

V decapitated by the jaws of a grab bucket on a crane

Held that is was wrong to base the decision on the subjective lack of subjective recklessness since a conviction does not require the D to act in this way

Answer plan

Definition - A duty of care breached so far it is deserving of a criminal consequence

Common law offence

5 Elements of the AR:

1. Duty of Care - D must owe a DoC to the victim, apply to show D’s role and use omission categories to show why the DoC is present, R v Stone and Dobinson

2. Breach of Duty - Must reach standard of a reasonably competent person, would a RC (D’s occupation) have acted similarly, established by R v Winters

3. Breach caused death - Neg must be operating and substantial cause, “but for” test, any intervening acts?

4. Risk of death - Would the RM have foreseen an obvious risk of death, R v Rose, apply this to scenario

5. Gross negligence - Actions taken must be so bad that the jury deem it worthy of criminal sanctions, established by R v Bateman, test from R v Adomako: D’s act caused a serious and obvious risk of death, BoD was so far below standards to be expected of a person in D’s position

MR general rule - No need for evidence of intent, R v DPP ex parte Jones