Gross Negligence Manslaughter (GNM)

• GNM: When D owes V a duty of care, but breaches that duty in a negligent way, which causes V to die
  • Often arises from D's omission to act

Adamako (1994)

• D was an anaesthetist. In one operation, D failed to supply V with sufficient oxygen and V died

Adamako provides the elements for GNM

• There must be a duty of care between D and V
• D must have breached that duty of care
• GNM must be criminal
• GNM must be a substantial cause of death

A duty of care arising from omissions:

• statutory duty (Road Traffic Act); contractual duty (Pitwood, Adamako); a danger D created (Miller); voluntary duty (Stone and Dobinson); familial duty (Gibbons v Proctor);a duty arising from official position (Dytham)

For GNM, the test for owing a duty of care can go further

Donoghue v Stevenson (1932)

• C went to cafe w/friend, who bought her a bottle of ginger beer. After drinking most of it, C found a decomposed snail in the bottle + became ill
• CA held that manufactorers had a duty of care to the consumer of their product and found favour in C
  • Lord Atkins: 'You must take reasonable care to avoid acts and omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour. Who, then, is my neighbour? The answer seems to be - persons who are so closely and directly affected by my acts that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are called into question'

Singh (1999)

• faulty gas fire caused the death of tenants
• Held that there was a duty for D to manage and maintain property

Khan and Khan (1998)

• Ds gave heroin to V, who self-administered in front of Ds
• V collapsed and then the Ds left the property. When they returned, they found V had died.
• Acquitted of ULAM, but CA believed there could be a duty to summon medical assistance in certain circumstances
  • D could be liable for failin to do this

Evans

• V = 16 year old heroin addict, who lived with mum and half sister
• Half sister gave her heroin. V self-injected + overdosed
  • D and mum left her alone hoping she would recover, but V died
• Held: Mother had a duty of care via relationship. D appealed, on whether there was a duty of care through relationship as a half-sister, but appeal dismissed - she gave heroin + created a danger

Wacker (2002)

• D agreed to bring illegal immigrants into the country in the back of a lorry
• only air supply in lorry (small air vent) was closed + all but two immigrants died
• D appealed on the grounds that he did not owe a duty of care, because they were involved in a legal enterprise
• Held: Appeal dismissed. Where V dies, even though they may have accepted an element of risk in order to carry out a joint illegal activity, there is no reason for D to escape liability

Wiloughby (2005)

• Held that the fact D and V were engaged in criminal activity didn't prevent D owing V a duty of care

• after establishing if duty of care is owed, must be established whether duty of care had been breached.
• Will always be judged on the standards of a reasonable man - objective test
• Breach of duty of care must cause the death

• for GNM, the negligence must be 'gross'
  • mere negligence won't suffice

Bateman (1925)

• D = doctor
• attending difficult birth. spent over an hour trying to get the baby to turn in the womb, but it was born dead
• D tried to remove the placenta, but took away part of V's womb with it
• D delayed sending V to hospital and V died. Charged with GNM
• Held: negligence is 'gross', when it goes 'beyond a matter of mere 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 of punishment'

Adamako (1995)

• HL approved this test + stressed that it was for the jury to decide whether, having regarded the risk of death involved; the conduct of the defendant was so bad in all the circumstances as to amount, in their judgement, to a criminal act / omisiion

R v Misra and Srivastava (2004)

• Ds = doctors monitoring V after an operation
• V delevoped and infection and died
• Ds appealed on the basis that it wasn't clear whether the risk should be to life, or only health and safety
  • argued this could result in a breach in Art 7 of the European Convention of Human Rights
• CA upheld their convictions - the elements of GNM were made clear in Adamako in saying that there must be a risk of death and nothing else. Therefore, Art 7 was not breached