Gross negligence manslaughter is proved by firstly establishing breach of duty of care and this is to
be established via the ordinary law of negligence. It must be proved the breach caused a death.
Once all of this is proved a jury must then consider if there is enough evidence of gross negligence
manslaughter.
The first element of this manslaughter offence requires that D owes a duty of care to the victim,
some way as in the tortious offence negligence, established in R v Adomako. In criminal law the
negligence test from civil law Caparo v Dickman is used only in novel cases and judges must attempt
to apply common or statute law first which was decided in Robinson v Chief constable of Yorkshire
police. Judges must also apply omissions and different duty situations in order to establish guilt.
Layla falls under the duty situation of contractual duty R v Pitwood. Duty arose as she is liable for the
safety of the main stage. Layla was responsible under her contract to ensure the stage was fit for a
safe use.
Kofi also owes a duty of care arising from contractual duty as she was responsible for the building of
the stage. She had the duty to build the stage or at least supervise the apprenticeship that were
building it.
Sarah on the other hand owes a duty of care with a duty situation of an official position R v Dytham.
She as a paramedic owes a bigger standard of medical care to the victim.
Breach of duty means that D has fallen below the standard of care expected of a reasonable man
Blyth v Birmingham waterworks.
Layla has breached her duty of care causing a risk of death as she will be judged by the standard of
the reasonable man. She failed to ensure the stage is safe to use, the reasonable man would not risk
so many people’s safety for a TV interview. The seriousness of potential harm is crucial too, Paris v
Stepney Council.
Kofi has allowed inexperienced apprentices build a stage which would been used by many people.
She failed to supervise them causing a possible risk of death breaching her duty of care ensuring the
stage is built sustainably. The reasonable man would take it on themselves to ensure the task is
complete up to a good standard without delegating the task to inexperienced people.
Sarah is a paramedic therefore her standard duty of care is higher than the ordinary man’s Bolon v
Barnet, as she is in an official position. Sarah has been medically negligent causing a risk of death.
The size of risk here is huge as she misdiagnosed a man who was injured Bolton v Stone.
The unlawful act must crucially cause the V’s death and both causations must be proven. The two
deceased people would not have died but for Layla not checking the sustainability of the stage. If
Layla had checked she would have realised there were issues with safety so factual causation would
be established via the ordinary law of negligence. It must be proved the breach caused a death.
Once all of this is proved a jury must then consider if there is enough evidence of gross negligence
manslaughter.
The first element of this manslaughter offence requires that D owes a duty of care to the victim,
some way as in the tortious offence negligence, established in R v Adomako. In criminal law the
negligence test from civil law Caparo v Dickman is used only in novel cases and judges must attempt
to apply common or statute law first which was decided in Robinson v Chief constable of Yorkshire
police. Judges must also apply omissions and different duty situations in order to establish guilt.
Layla falls under the duty situation of contractual duty R v Pitwood. Duty arose as she is liable for the
safety of the main stage. Layla was responsible under her contract to ensure the stage was fit for a
safe use.
Kofi also owes a duty of care arising from contractual duty as she was responsible for the building of
the stage. She had the duty to build the stage or at least supervise the apprenticeship that were
building it.
Sarah on the other hand owes a duty of care with a duty situation of an official position R v Dytham.
She as a paramedic owes a bigger standard of medical care to the victim.
Breach of duty means that D has fallen below the standard of care expected of a reasonable man
Blyth v Birmingham waterworks.
Layla has breached her duty of care causing a risk of death as she will be judged by the standard of
the reasonable man. She failed to ensure the stage is safe to use, the reasonable man would not risk
so many people’s safety for a TV interview. The seriousness of potential harm is crucial too, Paris v
Stepney Council.
Kofi has allowed inexperienced apprentices build a stage which would been used by many people.
She failed to supervise them causing a possible risk of death breaching her duty of care ensuring the
stage is built sustainably. The reasonable man would take it on themselves to ensure the task is
complete up to a good standard without delegating the task to inexperienced people.
Sarah is a paramedic therefore her standard duty of care is higher than the ordinary man’s Bolon v
Barnet, as she is in an official position. Sarah has been medically negligent causing a risk of death.
The size of risk here is huge as she misdiagnosed a man who was injured Bolton v Stone.
The unlawful act must crucially cause the V’s death and both causations must be proven. The two
deceased people would not have died but for Layla not checking the sustainability of the stage. If
Layla had checked she would have realised there were issues with safety so factual causation would
