Gross Negligence Manslaughter - Criminal

D owes a duty of care to anyone closely and directly affected by their act or omission.

yes

NONE

1. d must owe a duty of care.
2. d must breach that duty of care.
3. here must be a serious and obvious risk of death.
4. it must be reasonably foreseeable at that time that the breach would give rise to the above risk
5. causation
6. the jury must decide that the breach justifies criminal sanction.

Adomako - ordinary principles of negligence
(Robinson) or relevant established duty of cares

D breached his duty of care to the crew on his ship which exploded due to fuel contamination.

Failing to provide oxygen to illegal immigrants in the back of a lorry

R v Singh (1999)

Adomako (1994) - usual principles of negligence apply
Blyth - reasonable man test

That the breach of duty created a serious and obvious risk of death (R v Broughton).

Misra and Srivistava
facts: two doctors convicted of GNM following the death of a patient caused by an undiagnosed infection.

Means something much more than minimal or remote; a risk of serious injury or illness is not enough.

A risk that is present, clear and unambiguous; it is immediately apparent, striking and glaring as opposed to something that might become apparent on further investigation.

reasonable man

usual rules of factual and legal causation R v Broughton

In the view of the jury, the circumstances of the breach must be truly exceptionally bad and so reprehensible as to justify the conclusion that it amounted to gross negligence and required criminal sanction.

‘so bad in all the circumstances as to amount in the jury's judgment to a criminal act or omission’ (Adomako)

‘such disregard for the life and safety of others as to amount to a crime against the state deserving of punishment’.