Involuntary Manslaughter – part 2. Aims and Objectives To investigate the law on GNM To develop …………………and……………….. of the tests involved and to examine

Involuntary Manslaughter – part 2

Aims and ObjectivesTo investigate the law on

GNMTo develop …………………

and……………….. of the tests involved and to examine pieces of key legal authority (A0 )

To …………….. key cases and principles to a given problem

To reach a sustainable…………….

All will be assessed on a problem question…

Your aim/target is to concentrate on applying the law as well as you define it!!!!! A0…..????

18/04/23copyright 2006 www.brainybetty.com; All Rights Reserved. 2

Gross negligence manslaughterThis is committed

where d owes a victim a duty of care but breaches that duty in a negligent way, causing the death of a victim.

It can be committed by an act or an omission (the behaviour does not have to be unlawful).

18/04/23 3

Leading case = R v Adomako:Facts: D was an anaesthetist…..

During an operation the tube that helped v breath came out and was not noticed for 9 mins therefore the heart stopped and an alarm sounded. V died D was charged with manslaughter.

Held: a reasonable anaesthetist would have noticed this and acted to save V.

This case established the three elements of GNM.

18/04/23 copyright 2006 www.brainybetty.com; All Rights Reserved. 4

The 3 tests are:1. There must be a duty of

care between the Defendant and the Victim,

2. There must be a;a) a breach of that duty

b) that causes death

3. a) Gross Negligence which the jury considers to be criminalb) due to the risk of death


1. Duty of Care must be owedTell me the principles of these cases:


Donoghue and StevensonThe Neighbour Principle: a duty of care is owed to persons who are closely and directly effected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in my Contemplation.

R v WackerA D can owe a person a duty even if they are involved in criminal activity. E.g. transporting illegal immigrants

R v BatemanDoctor owes duty to patient. The doctors appeal was allowed butThere was no doubt that a doctor owes a D of C to a patient.

Task:Think back to unit 2: in

what situations do we know of when a defendant will owe a duty of care to another and can therefeore be guilty of a criminal offence for a failure to act?

(This bit on omissions was your favourite bit!!)


In the following situations D can be guilty by way of omission …


R v Stone and Dobinson – Duty to act taken on voluntarily

R v Pittwood – contractual duty

R v Miller – Duty due to D starting a dangerous chain of events

Was there a duty in the following cases? Why/Why not?R v Harris and Harris – Special relationship

R v Khan – MIGHT be a duty between drug dealer and customer.

R v Singh – Landlord has a duty to tenants.

R v Browning – No duty from pub landlord to drinker

R v Willoughby – A judge can direct that there is a duty of care.


Starter.... Legal Pictionary

Legal Pictionary Extra!


2. BreachWhere a person has

a duty of care they must maintain a standard of care that a reasonable person in the same situation would do.

This obviously rises in the case of professionals eg doctors


Causing deathTell me the rules that apply in relation to

causing death. Write them down on your handout under the 2 cases.


Causing Death

Must show that if D had exercised proper care V would not have died


R v Armstrong

It must be proved that D’s negligence

caused V’s death

R v Dalloway

Gross Negligence…the fault element or Mens Rea!

The fact that d has been negligent is not enough to convict him of GNM.

The negligence has to be gross .

It must also be proved the breach involved a risk of death.


What is Gross Negligence???According to Adomako it is for the jury to decide

having regard to the risk of death involved, whether the conduct of D was so bad in all the circumstances to amount to a criminal act or omission

Gross negligence may include:-1.Indifference to an obvious risk of injury to health

OR Foresight of the risk and running it nonetheless2.Appreciation of the risk and an intention to avoid

but done with such negligence that ii is deserving of criminal punishment

3.Serious failure to address an obvious risk which goes beyond ‘mere inadvertance’


Judicial descriptions of Gross Negligence

The negligence of the accused went beyond a mere matter of compensation between subjects and showed such disregard for the life and safety of others as to amount to a crime against the State and conduct deserving punishment.


R v Bateman (1925)

Andrews v DPP(1937)

For the purpose of the criminal law there are degrees of negligence, and a very high degree of negligence is required to be proved before manslaughter is established.

The essence of the matter is whether the conduct of the defendant was so bad in all the circumstances as to amount in their judgment to a criminal act or omission.

R v Adomako

Gross negligence requires a risk not just of injury but of death, though the defendant himself need not have foreseen a risk of this magnitude.

R v Singh [1999] Crim LR 582, CA


The trial judge's jury direction said a conviction would require circumstances such that a reasonably prudent person would have foreseen a serious and obvious risk not merely of injury, even serious injury, but of death.

Examples of how the courts decide gross negligence…

R v Edwards (2001) unreported

R v Finlay (2001) unreported

R v Hood (2003) unreported

R v Wood & Hodgson (2003) unreported


DD allowed their 7 year-old to play on a railway bridge, They had shut their eyes to an obvious and serious danger - or had decided to take the risk - and this was gross negligence.

Scout fell to his death on Snowdon. Scout leader acquitted,He did not show such disregard for life and safety as to amount to gross negligence

D found him guilty of manslaughter on the basis that he had failed to get medical attention for his wife for two weeks

DD found not guilty after child found and swallowed ecstacy tablets hidden in their house

A star case…R v Mirsa & SrivistravaPatient died as a result of the Negligence

of 2 Doctors…both were convicted of GNM.On appeal D’s argued that their human

rights had been breached by asking the jury to decide if their negligence was so bad it should be criminal (ie identifying a new crime)

The HoL rejected their appeal saying the jury were merely applying their behaviour to a pre existing definition of a crime.



For example: R v Goodfellow when D was convicted of Unlawful act manslaughter.

What was the unlawful act?

How could this also be Gross Neg?

For example: R v Goodfellow when D was convicted of Unlawful act manslaughter.

What was the unlawful act?

How could this also be Gross Neg?

Do be aware however that sometimes there can be an overlap between unlawful act and gross negligence manslaughter, therefore D could satisfy the offence either way!!!!

D created an obvious and serious risk. He had recognised the risk but took it anyway - GNM. (Nit was actually convicted under UAM)

Arson

Homework TaskComplete the

summary chart on page 14 of your handout…

This can form part of your revision.... You guessed it.... Timed essay next week!


Group activity….1. Complete the case

study given to you….2. Appoint a chair,

timekeeper, and a scribe. Every member of the group must give some feedback

3. Solve the problem and be prepared to feedback on the part of your plan requested by your tutor!

You only have 15 minutes for this task!


Plenary time… Q & A


Documents

Involuntary Manslaughter – part 2. Aims and Objectives To investigate the law on GNM To develop …………………and……………….. of the tests involved and to examine