Gross Negligence Manslaughter (Involuntary Manslaughter)
Involuntary manslaughter is charged when the defendant has committed an unlawful killing,
because they do not have the mens rea for murder.
These offences are charged when the mens rea of murder cannot be satisfied, but a lower
level of mens rea does exist.
The elements of gross negligence manslaughter are:
1. Duty of care
2. Breach of duty
3. Serious and obvious risk of death
4. The serious and obvious risk of death must be foreseeable
5. Breach must cause the death of the victim
6. Breach is so ‘gross’, that it must be criminal
7. Defendant meets the mens rea of negligence
R v Adomako (1994) - defines the definition of Gross Negligence Manslaughter
R v Broughton (2020)
The defendant must owe a duty of care to the victim
Duty of care - The idea of duty of care in the tort of negligence is to establish a legal
relationship between the claimant and the defendant.
Donoghue v Stevenson (1932)
The Neighbour Principle - The person who is owed a duty of care by the defendant.
According to Lord Atkin it is anyone you ought to have in mind who might potentially be
injured by your act or omission.
- This ‘neighbour’ principle was used by judges for a number of years, but it became
clear that it was not sufficient to deal with new situations that came before the courts.
- This meant that courts came up with a new test the next time this issue came up.
- This was done in Caparo v Dickman (1990)
Existing duty
Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire (2018)
Legal principle – the Caparo test does not have to be strictly applied in every case, instead
the courts should look to existing statutes and precedents and identify duties through
analogy. Where there is an existing or analogous duty that can be applied, the courts do not
need to consider the Caparo test, as such consideration has already been determined,
recognising the duty. Only in novel duty situations does this need to be considered.
Additionally, public authorities are subject to the same liabilities in tort law as private
individuals. They are under a duty not to cause the public harm via their own actions but are
not under a duty to prevent harm from third parties. The Police are not exempt from claims of
negligence.
Caparo v Dickman (1990)
- Caparo Industries purchased shares in Fidelity Plc in reliance of the accounts which
stated that the company had made a pre-tax profit of £1.3 million.
Involuntary manslaughter is charged when the defendant has committed an unlawful killing,
because they do not have the mens rea for murder.
These offences are charged when the mens rea of murder cannot be satisfied, but a lower
level of mens rea does exist.
The elements of gross negligence manslaughter are:
1. Duty of care
2. Breach of duty
3. Serious and obvious risk of death
4. The serious and obvious risk of death must be foreseeable
5. Breach must cause the death of the victim
6. Breach is so ‘gross’, that it must be criminal
7. Defendant meets the mens rea of negligence
R v Adomako (1994) - defines the definition of Gross Negligence Manslaughter
R v Broughton (2020)
The defendant must owe a duty of care to the victim
Duty of care - The idea of duty of care in the tort of negligence is to establish a legal
relationship between the claimant and the defendant.
Donoghue v Stevenson (1932)
The Neighbour Principle - The person who is owed a duty of care by the defendant.
According to Lord Atkin it is anyone you ought to have in mind who might potentially be
injured by your act or omission.
- This ‘neighbour’ principle was used by judges for a number of years, but it became
clear that it was not sufficient to deal with new situations that came before the courts.
- This meant that courts came up with a new test the next time this issue came up.
- This was done in Caparo v Dickman (1990)
Existing duty
Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire (2018)
Legal principle – the Caparo test does not have to be strictly applied in every case, instead
the courts should look to existing statutes and precedents and identify duties through
analogy. Where there is an existing or analogous duty that can be applied, the courts do not
need to consider the Caparo test, as such consideration has already been determined,
recognising the duty. Only in novel duty situations does this need to be considered.
Additionally, public authorities are subject to the same liabilities in tort law as private
individuals. They are under a duty not to cause the public harm via their own actions but are
not under a duty to prevent harm from third parties. The Police are not exempt from claims of
negligence.
Caparo v Dickman (1990)
- Caparo Industries purchased shares in Fidelity Plc in reliance of the accounts which
stated that the company had made a pre-tax profit of £1.3 million.
