Gross Negligence Manslaughter
- D must have a duty of care
- Breach that duty
- Breach must cause death
- Negligence must be so gross at to make it criminal.
Duty of care
3 part test- Caparo v Dickman
1). Harm to v was reasonably foreseeable- Jolley v Sutton LBC
2). Proximaty between D and V- Osman v Ferguson
3). Fair, just and reasonable to impose duty on D- Hill v Chief constable of Yorkshire
Ex Turpi Causa- Criminal cases only- If D and V are in a criminal act together and v dies, D may owe a duty of care.
Gross Negligence Manslaughter 2
Breach of duty
Blyth v Birmingham waterworks co- Not doing something the reasonable person would do, or doing something the reasonable person would do.
Nettleship V Weston- inexperience does not lower standard of care expected. Bolam- Profession can raise standard of care. Mullin v Richards- age can lower standard of care.
Risk Factors- size-Bolton v Stone/Miller v Jackson, seriousness- Paris v Stepney BC, Practicability of precautions- Paris v Stepney BC, Benefits of risk-taking- Watt v Hertfordshire CC.
Breach must cause death
Negligence judged so gross as to make it criminal
Bateman- 'beyond a mere matter of compensation and shows such a disregard for life/safety of others as to amount to a crime against the state, and conduct desrving of a punishment.
Gross Negligence Manslaughter 3
Adomako- Having regard to the risk of death, is D's conduct so bad in all the circumstances as to amount to a criminal act or omission?
Misra and Srivstava- must be a risk of death (although if V dies there surely must have been).