Unlawful Act Manslaughter x2

* Adomako sets out the rules for gross negligence manslaughter.

* For gross negligence manslaughter there must be:

1. A duty of care to the victim

2.A breach of that duty which causes death

3. Negligence which the jury considers to be sufficiently gross to be criminal

4.  Gross negligence was a substantial cause of the victims death

* Defendants duty of care to the victim must be established

* Lord Mackat said that the ordinary principles of neglience should apply when determing whether a duty of care existed and has been breached

* Duty of care was defined in the civil case - Donoghue V Stevenson.

'Lord Atkinson said: You must take care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably forsee would be likely to injure your neighbour. Your neighbour is someone who is closely and directly affected by my act.

Examples of Duties:

1. Stone & Dobinson = duty to be taken on voluntarily

2. Singh = Duty to manage/maintain property

3. Khan & Khan = duty to summon medical assistance

* The fact that the victim is part to a criminal act is irrelevant

* Case of Wacker

* Defendant was convic

ted of gross negligence manslaughter, and argued he owed no duty of care to the victim as they were carrying out a joint unlawful activity. 

* COA rejected this argument, the fact victim is part to a criminal act is irrelevant, defednant will still be liable

* Breach of duty occurs when the defendant fails to reach the standard of care expected       (Blyth V Birmingham Waterworks).

* In Stone & Dobinson - they were expected to do more to take care of their sister

* Breach of duty occurs when the defendant fails to reach the standard of care expected       (Blyth V Birmingham Waterworks).

* In Stone & Dobinson - they were expected to do more to take care of their sister

* The breach must amount to gross negligence, negligence is not enough

* Bateman = the case of bateman stated that negligence is gross when it goes beyond a matter of mere compensation and showed such disregard for the life and safety of others as toamount to a crime as to amount to a crime against the state deserving punishment.

* Until Misra it was not clear whether a risk of death was needed or whether a risk of harm was enough. Misra confirmed that it must be a risk of death and confirmed the requirements as stated in Adomako.