Gross Negligence Manslaughter

HideShow resource information
  • Created by: rachel
  • Created on: 11-06-14 17:12

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.

1 of 3

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

Causation.

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.

2 of 3

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).

3 of 3

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Criminal law resources »