Gross Negligence Manslaughter
- Created by: Hayley Petts
- Created on: 21-05-14 08:36
View mindmap
- Gross Negligence Manslaughter
- Adomako (1994) - anaesthetist failed to notice tube had disconnected
- existence of a duty of care towards V
- breach of that duty which causes death
- breach must be so grossly negligent to justify a criminal conviction in the jury's eyes
- Duty of Care
- defined by principles of negligence in Donoghue v Stevenson (1932)
- must take reasonable care to avoid acts and omission which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour
- Singh (1999) - landlord of property where fault gas fire caused death
- convicted as duty to maintain and manage property
- Litchfield (1998) - set sail knowing engines might fail and 3 crew died
- convicted as owed duty to crew
- Wacker (2002) - bought 60 illegal into UK in lorry - closed air vent killing 58 of them
- CA upheld conviction - immigrants relied on him and owed them duty even though enterprise criminal
- CA also decided that a duty of care can exist where D has created a state of affairs which he knows or ought to reasonably to know has become life-threatening
- Evans (2009) - gave heroin to half-sister who self injected. girl collapse and D + mum put girl to bed
- Mum had duty of care for her child
- Evans (2009) - gave heroin to half-sister who self injected. girl collapse and D + mum put girl to bed
- defined by principles of negligence in Donoghue v Stevenson (1932)
- Breach of Duty
- once duty has been established must be proved D was in breach of that duty
- must be proof of causation
- Gross Negligence
- negligence has to be 'gross'
- Bateman (1925) - D was doctor who attended childbirth. D did not sent woman to hospital for five days and she died = despite medical problems
- "gross negligence" must be of a degree that goes beyond the civil liability of compensation
- Lord Atkins in Andrews v DPP (1937) - stated a very high degree of negligence was needed
- a 'criminal disregard for others' safety
- Lord Mackay in Adomako (1995) - jury had to decide based on 'conduct so bad' test
- must be a risk of death
- Stone and Donbinson (1977) - D had undertaken the care of Stone's sister
- test was expressed as the risk being to the 'health and welfare' of the sister who died
- Stone and Donbinson (1977) - D had undertaken the care of Stone's sister
- Misra and another (2004) - M + another doctor failed to identify and treat infection in patient after knee operation
- CA upheld convictions are risk of death and argument that elements of GN unclear and breach of ECHR Art 7 rejected
- Adomako (1994) - anaesthetist failed to notice tube had disconnected
Comments
No comments have yet been made