Gross negligence manslaughter
• Final offence under homicide
• A form of involuntary manslaughter- unlawful killing, without the mens rea
for murder
• Vague- needing reform?
• Related to case study- Hillsborough
=4-part test for manslaughter- Adomako test 1994
- Recklessness plays no part in gross negligence manslaughter
- Gross negligence only
- Different mens rea- satisfied by negligence (civil law?)
=Case facts
› Involved an anaesthetist responsible for ensuring vital signs of patient were
maintained
› Failed to notice, for a long period of time, that a breathing tube had become
disconnected
› The patient suffered from cardiac arrest and died
› No mens rea for murder- no intention to cause death or GBH
1. Did D owe V a duty of care?
2. Did D breach that duty of care?
3. Did the breach cause V’s death?
4. Was the breach so grossly negligent to justify a criminal conviction?
Did D owe V a duty of care?
- Lord Mackay (leading judgement in Adomako test) referred to the need for the
‘ordinary principles’ of negligence to apply. “in my opinion the ordinary principles of
the law of negligence apply to ascertain whether or not d has been in breach of duty
of care to V who died
- Herring- ‘much simplified- you owe a duty of care towards anyone who may
foreseeably be harmed by your actions”
- Can be based on a positive act or an omission eg Evans 2009- D gave heroin to V and
failed to summon help for V after overdose
- Evans 2009- “the existence or otherwise of a duty of care or a duty to act was a
question of law for the judge, and the question whether the facts established the
existence of the duty, was for the jury
• Final offence under homicide
• A form of involuntary manslaughter- unlawful killing, without the mens rea
for murder
• Vague- needing reform?
• Related to case study- Hillsborough
=4-part test for manslaughter- Adomako test 1994
- Recklessness plays no part in gross negligence manslaughter
- Gross negligence only
- Different mens rea- satisfied by negligence (civil law?)
=Case facts
› Involved an anaesthetist responsible for ensuring vital signs of patient were
maintained
› Failed to notice, for a long period of time, that a breathing tube had become
disconnected
› The patient suffered from cardiac arrest and died
› No mens rea for murder- no intention to cause death or GBH
1. Did D owe V a duty of care?
2. Did D breach that duty of care?
3. Did the breach cause V’s death?
4. Was the breach so grossly negligent to justify a criminal conviction?
Did D owe V a duty of care?
- Lord Mackay (leading judgement in Adomako test) referred to the need for the
‘ordinary principles’ of negligence to apply. “in my opinion the ordinary principles of
the law of negligence apply to ascertain whether or not d has been in breach of duty
of care to V who died
- Herring- ‘much simplified- you owe a duty of care towards anyone who may
foreseeably be harmed by your actions”
- Can be based on a positive act or an omission eg Evans 2009- D gave heroin to V and
failed to summon help for V after overdose
- Evans 2009- “the existence or otherwise of a duty of care or a duty to act was a
question of law for the judge, and the question whether the facts established the
existence of the duty, was for the jury
