gross negligence manslaughter

What is the structure of GNM?

1) Duty of Care

2) Breach of duty

3)Foreseeable risk of death

4) Causation

5) Gross negligence

What are the key elements of gross negligence manslaughter, and which cases established them?

Gross negligence manslaughter (GNM) is a form of involuntary manslaughter. The key elements were set out in the case of Adomako and restated in the case of Broughton.

What is the duty of care in GNM?

Whether a duty is owed derives from the civil law. However, in GNM, it is necessary to use a pre-established duty of care using criminal case law. Where a duty of care is owed depends on the facts of each case, shown in cases such as Kuddus and Zaman.

Can there be a contractual duty?

Yes, There can be a contractual duty to act where the contract tells D what their duty is, as in Pittwood.

Which contractual duties can there be?

There can be a contractual duty to manage and maintain properties, as in Singh. Or there can be a contractual duty between a captain and crew member on a ship, as in Litchfield.

Can there be a duty under an official position?

There can be a duty under an official position, where people like police officers have a duty to act because of their position, such as in Dytham.

Can there be a duty through a special relationship?

There can be a duty through a special relationship, such as parent to a child, such as in Gibbins and Proctor.

Can there be a voluntary duty?

There can be a voluntary duty assumed for another. When the D agrees to care for another person a duty is created, as in Stone and Dobinson. However, all factors are considered and it is difficult for this to be formed, shown in Evans.

Can there be a duty through a dangerous situation?

A duty can be formed if D has created a dangerous situation, where they have a duty to limit the harm caused, as in Evans.

What can create a statutory duty to act?

An Act of Parliament can create a statutory duty to act.

Is there a duty if D has supplied drugs to V and left them alone?

Where the defendant has supplied a drug to the victim and then left them alone, then this could form a duty of care, as in Khan and Khan.

Is there a duty if D and V are complicit in a crime?

If D and V are complicit in a crime, this can still form a duty of care, shown in cases like Wacker and Willoughby.

What is breach of duty?

Next, D must have breached their duty to V.

The court considers what D was expected to do and where he failed to do it or did it to a poor standard.

What standard is D judged against?

D is judged against the standard of the reasonable competent man doing the same activity as him (Blythe).

Does the standard change for trainees/learners?

If D is a trainee/learner, this is not considered, and D is expected to meet the same standard as everyone else (Nettleship v Weston)

Does the standard change for lack of experience?

If D lacks experience, this is not considered, and D is expected to meet the same standard as everyone else (Wilsher v Essex Health Authority)

Does the standard change for professionals?

Yes, Professionals are judged by the standard of the profession as a whole and must reach a higher standard (Bolam)

What are risk factors?

Risk factors are then used to show if the defendant has fallen below the standard set.

Would special characteristics be considered?

Yes, Any special characteristics of the victim which would increase the risk of injury or harm can be considered (Paris v Stepney Borough Council)

Would magnitude of risk be considered

Yes, The magnitude of risk is also considered (Bolton v Stone).

Would cost and practicality be considered?

The cost and practicality of taking precautions can be considered (Latimer v AEC Ltd).

What is the foreseeable risk of death?

The breach must carry a risk of death.

A risk of bodily harm is not enough, as in Misra and Srivastava. It must also be foreseeable to the reasonable person that, on the information known to D, the breach gave rise to a serious and obvious risk of death, as in Kuddus.

Would D's knowledge be considered when assessing the risk of death?

D's knowledge as to the situation may become relevant when applying the test, as in Zaman.

What is factual causation? How is it proved?

To prove factual causation, the but for test is used, established in White. This asks if "but for the act/omission of D, would V have still been harmed?" shown in the case of Pagett.

What is legal causation? How is it proved?

To prove legal causation, D must be a more than minimal cause meaning 'operating' and not 'de minimis' as in Kimsey. The chain of causation must be unbroken.

What happens when there is doubt about causation?

If there is any doubt has to causation being satisfied, a conviction for GNM cannot stand, explained in Broughton.

Is D still liable if there are multiple causes of a result?

Yes, although there can be multiple causes of a result, and D can still be liable if they are an operating factor.

When can the chain of causation be broken?

The chain of causation can be broken if there is a novus actus interveniens. Intervening acts will only break the chain of causation when they are unforeseeable.

Can an omission break the chain of causation?

No, An omission will not break the chain of causation - even if unforeseeable; only an act will break the chain of causation.

Can medical negligence break the chain of causation?

In certain circumstances medical negligence might break the chain of causation when it is unforeseeable and "so independent of the D's act and so potent in causing the result that the contribution made by the D is insignificant" explained in Cheshire and demonstrated in cases of Smith and Jordan.

Can the chain be broken by doctor turning off life support?

No, When a doctor turns off a life support machine it is not a new and intervening act if in patient's best interests. This is because the V is brain dead and not classed a human being, shown in case of Malcherek and Steel.

Can V's own act break the chain?

Sometimes the V's own act can break the chain. This will be when V's act is so unforeseeable and unreasonable to break the chain, as displayed in the cases of Roberts and Williams and Davis.

Can V's own neglect break the chain?

Sometimes the V's own neglect of themselves can break the chain. This will be when V's act is so unconnected to what D did to break the chain, as in Dear.

Can acts of a third party break the chain?

Acts of a third party can also break the chain. Here, the question is whether the intervention was foreseeable and if D was still a more than minimal cause of the result. If so, the third-party negligence is irrelevant and D is still held to be the cause, as in Benge.

What is the thin skull rule?

The thin skull rule is where D must 'take his victim as he finds them'. This means that even if V had a vulnerability unknown to D, D will still be liable for the full extent of V's injuries, shown in Blaue.

What is gross negligence?

When D's negligence is so gross to be considered criminal by a jury, as in Adomako.

What level of negligence is required to amount to gross negligence in a criminal context?

Gross negligence must be so reprehensible that it warrants criminal sanction, as explained in Rose.

How did the case of Bateman define gross negligence?

In Bateman, gross negligence was defined as conduct showing such a "disregard for the life and safety of others" that it justifies criminal liability.

Does gross negligence involve issues of mere compensation?

No, gross negligence must go beyond "a matter of mere compensation."

Who decides whether conduct amounts to gross negligence?

It is for the jury to decide, based on the facts of each case.