Gross Negligence Manslaughter
Gross negligence manslaughter is a form of involuntary manslaughter where the defendant is
ostensibly/allegedly acting lawfully. Involuntary manslaughter may arise where the defendant
has caused death but neither intended to cause death nor intended to cause serious bodily harm
and thus lacks the mens rea of murder. Whereas constructive manslaughter exists where the
defendant commits an unlawful act which results in death, gross negligence manslaughter is
not dependant on demonstrating an unlawful act has been committed. Gross negligence
manslaughter can be said to apply where the defendant commits a lawful act in such a way as to
render the actions criminal. Gross negligence manslaughter also differs from constructive
manslaughter in that it can be committed by omission.
GNM was originally set out in:
R v Bateman
This was followed in:
Andrews v DPP 1937
This was considered unsatisfactory as the test was circular in that the jury were being told in
effect to convict of a crime if they thought a crime had been committed. Subsequently gross
negligence manslaughter was largely replaced with reckless manslaughter:
R v Lawrence 1982
Kong Cheuk Kwan v The Queen
However, the House of Lords in Adomako held that the law as stated in R v Seymour [1983] 2
A.C. 493 should no longer apply since the underlying statutory provisions on which it rested
have now been repealed by the Road Traffic Act 1991.
R v Adomako 1994
Following Adomako it was necessary for the prosecution to establish that the defendant: 4 limbs
The following case confirmed that R v Adomako required no proof of mens rea on behalf of the
defendant:
AG ref no 2 of 1999
This was affirmed in the following case where it was ruled that the CPS were wrong to base a
decision not to prosecute on the lack of subjective recklessness of the employer:
R v DPP ex parte Jones 2000
The following case suggests a fifth ingredient to Adomako of criminality or badness:
Rowley v DPP 2003
Lord Mackay, in R v Adomako, made it clear that civil law concepts of duty of care should apply
in deciding the criminal liability of a person for gross negligence manslaughter. This has proved
problematic outside the realm of medical negligence and driving cases. In particular, the question
, of whether a drug dealer owes a duty of care to one whom he has supplied seems to be illogical
although the courts have not ruled out the possibility:
R v Khan & Khan 1998
A woman who supplied drugs to her sister was held to owe a duty of care to summon help for
her when she displayed symptoms of an overdose. The duty arose not from her familial
relationship, nor from her acceptance of duty but through her supplying the drugs and
thus creating a dangerous situation:
R v Evans 2009
The problem relating to the circularity of the test for gross negligence manslaughter remained ie
the jury were to find the defendant liable of a crime if they thought his actions amounted to a
crime. This was challenged as being in breach of Art 6 & 7 of the European Convention of
Human Rights. However, the Court of Appeal held that the test was sufficiently certain to
comply with Convention rights:
R v Misra 2005
Lecture:
Homicide offence which is committed by negligence (quite off but exists)
GNM is at the bottom of the homicide offence
When looking at homicide offence there has to be intention
The idea of killing someone through negligence (which is basically standard) = merging tort
law negligence with criminal law manslaughter
Manslaughter means someone has died; we are looking to see if the person meant to kill or
cause GBH
GNM is anyone that owes a duty to someone who died and the breach was so bad it can
account to criminal labile
Proving negligence and gross negligence is different because the consequences are a lot
harsher for GN therefore principles shouldn’t be so easy to satisfy
Background
Generally, liability for serious offences is limited to situations where D had made a
choice to risk harm
Negligence is generally restricted to regulatory offence
Because it is less serious in terms of mens rea elements; GNM is normally attached to
less serious criminal offences
- Kind of like strict liability offences
Most serious criminal liability require intentions; less serious require negligence
Gross negligence applies only to manslaughter
Negligence is not sufficient to form the base offence for constructive manslaughter
GNM is an ‘extreme exception’ (Smith and Hogan) which is punishable with a maximum
of life imprisonment
Kennedy case was a constructive manslaughter case = base offence: offence against
persons act (base offence for manslaughter)
Gross negligence manslaughter is a form of involuntary manslaughter where the defendant is
ostensibly/allegedly acting lawfully. Involuntary manslaughter may arise where the defendant
has caused death but neither intended to cause death nor intended to cause serious bodily harm
and thus lacks the mens rea of murder. Whereas constructive manslaughter exists where the
defendant commits an unlawful act which results in death, gross negligence manslaughter is
not dependant on demonstrating an unlawful act has been committed. Gross negligence
manslaughter can be said to apply where the defendant commits a lawful act in such a way as to
render the actions criminal. Gross negligence manslaughter also differs from constructive
manslaughter in that it can be committed by omission.
GNM was originally set out in:
R v Bateman
This was followed in:
Andrews v DPP 1937
This was considered unsatisfactory as the test was circular in that the jury were being told in
effect to convict of a crime if they thought a crime had been committed. Subsequently gross
negligence manslaughter was largely replaced with reckless manslaughter:
R v Lawrence 1982
Kong Cheuk Kwan v The Queen
However, the House of Lords in Adomako held that the law as stated in R v Seymour [1983] 2
A.C. 493 should no longer apply since the underlying statutory provisions on which it rested
have now been repealed by the Road Traffic Act 1991.
R v Adomako 1994
Following Adomako it was necessary for the prosecution to establish that the defendant: 4 limbs
The following case confirmed that R v Adomako required no proof of mens rea on behalf of the
defendant:
AG ref no 2 of 1999
This was affirmed in the following case where it was ruled that the CPS were wrong to base a
decision not to prosecute on the lack of subjective recklessness of the employer:
R v DPP ex parte Jones 2000
The following case suggests a fifth ingredient to Adomako of criminality or badness:
Rowley v DPP 2003
Lord Mackay, in R v Adomako, made it clear that civil law concepts of duty of care should apply
in deciding the criminal liability of a person for gross negligence manslaughter. This has proved
problematic outside the realm of medical negligence and driving cases. In particular, the question
, of whether a drug dealer owes a duty of care to one whom he has supplied seems to be illogical
although the courts have not ruled out the possibility:
R v Khan & Khan 1998
A woman who supplied drugs to her sister was held to owe a duty of care to summon help for
her when she displayed symptoms of an overdose. The duty arose not from her familial
relationship, nor from her acceptance of duty but through her supplying the drugs and
thus creating a dangerous situation:
R v Evans 2009
The problem relating to the circularity of the test for gross negligence manslaughter remained ie
the jury were to find the defendant liable of a crime if they thought his actions amounted to a
crime. This was challenged as being in breach of Art 6 & 7 of the European Convention of
Human Rights. However, the Court of Appeal held that the test was sufficiently certain to
comply with Convention rights:
R v Misra 2005
Lecture:
Homicide offence which is committed by negligence (quite off but exists)
GNM is at the bottom of the homicide offence
When looking at homicide offence there has to be intention
The idea of killing someone through negligence (which is basically standard) = merging tort
law negligence with criminal law manslaughter
Manslaughter means someone has died; we are looking to see if the person meant to kill or
cause GBH
GNM is anyone that owes a duty to someone who died and the breach was so bad it can
account to criminal labile
Proving negligence and gross negligence is different because the consequences are a lot
harsher for GN therefore principles shouldn’t be so easy to satisfy
Background
Generally, liability for serious offences is limited to situations where D had made a
choice to risk harm
Negligence is generally restricted to regulatory offence
Because it is less serious in terms of mens rea elements; GNM is normally attached to
less serious criminal offences
- Kind of like strict liability offences
Most serious criminal liability require intentions; less serious require negligence
Gross negligence applies only to manslaughter
Negligence is not sufficient to form the base offence for constructive manslaughter
GNM is an ‘extreme exception’ (Smith and Hogan) which is punishable with a maximum
of life imprisonment
Kennedy case was a constructive manslaughter case = base offence: offence against
persons act (base offence for manslaughter)
