Gross Negligence Manslaughter
Definition: Gross Negligence Manslaughter is involuntary manslaughter where D owes a duty of care, breaches it
in a grossly negligent way, and causes death. The conduct must show disregard for life and safety serious enough
to be criminal (R v Bateman).
- Involuntary manslaughter involving a gross breach of duty causing death (R v Adomako).
- 1. Duty of Care: Civil principles apply (Donoghue v Stevenson). Includes doctors, landlords (R v Singh), voluntary
assumption (Stone & Dobinson), or creation of danger (Santa-Bermudez).
- 2. Breach of Duty: Compared to reasonable professional (R v Adomako, Bolam test).
- 3. Causation: Factual (‘but for’, R v White) + Legal (must be substantial and operating, R v Smith, R v Cheshire).
Chain not broken unless independent and unforeseeable.
- 4. Grossness: Must amount to crime in jury’s eyes (R v Bateman, Misra: risk of death must be obvious).
- Apply to scenario: Identify duty > Show breach > Prove causation > Was it grossly negligent?
Fraud
- Fraud Act 2006, s2: Fraud by false representation.
- AR: False or misleading representation made knowingly; can be express or implied (e.g., use of card).
- MR: (1) Dishonesty (Ivey test), (2) Intent to cause gain/loss, (3) Knowledge of possible falsity.
- R v Adams: Clarified intent and falsehood awareness.
- Applies to written, spoken, or online statements. Includes omitted facts if misleading.
Defences
- Duress: Threat of serious harm. Must be immediate and unavoidable. Not for murder (R v Howe). R v Hasan:
Association with criminals removes defence.
- Duress of Circumstances: Emergency situation, same test as above (R v Martin).
- Necessity: Rare. Only where harm avoided is greater (Re A).
- Intoxication: Voluntary = only defence to specific intent if D lacked MR (Sheehan); Basic intent = no defence
(Majewski). Involuntary = possible (R v Kingston).
- Self-defence: Honest belief needed (R v Gladstone Williams). Must be proportionate (CJIA 2008). Householder =
more leeway unless grossly excessive.
- Insanity: M’Naghten rules. Internal condition caused loss of understanding (R v Kemp). Must not know act or
wrongness (R v Windle).
- Automatism: External cause (Quick = insulin). Total loss of control needed (AG Ref No 2 of 1992).
- Consent: Only valid for minor harm (sports, tattoos). Not valid for serious harm (R v Brown). R v Wilson allowed
branding as private matter.
- Mistake: Honest belief may negate MR (R v Morgan). Must relate to fact, not law.
- Loss of Control: CJA 2009. Trigger (fear/anger) + loss + similar person (R v Clinton). No planning allowed.
Police Powers
- Stop & Search (PACE s1): Must be based on reasonable suspicion. Can’t rely on stereotypes. Code A: Record
required.
- Arrest (PACE s24): Reasonable grounds + necessity test (e.g., prevent harm, investigation). D must be told
grounds.
- Detention: 24 hrs max (36 for serious offences). Must inform rights: legal advice, silence, review.
- Search: s18 (premises after arrest), s32 (search of person/property at arrest). Must be linked to offence.
Definition: Gross Negligence Manslaughter is involuntary manslaughter where D owes a duty of care, breaches it
in a grossly negligent way, and causes death. The conduct must show disregard for life and safety serious enough
to be criminal (R v Bateman).
- Involuntary manslaughter involving a gross breach of duty causing death (R v Adomako).
- 1. Duty of Care: Civil principles apply (Donoghue v Stevenson). Includes doctors, landlords (R v Singh), voluntary
assumption (Stone & Dobinson), or creation of danger (Santa-Bermudez).
- 2. Breach of Duty: Compared to reasonable professional (R v Adomako, Bolam test).
- 3. Causation: Factual (‘but for’, R v White) + Legal (must be substantial and operating, R v Smith, R v Cheshire).
Chain not broken unless independent and unforeseeable.
- 4. Grossness: Must amount to crime in jury’s eyes (R v Bateman, Misra: risk of death must be obvious).
- Apply to scenario: Identify duty > Show breach > Prove causation > Was it grossly negligent?
Fraud
- Fraud Act 2006, s2: Fraud by false representation.
- AR: False or misleading representation made knowingly; can be express or implied (e.g., use of card).
- MR: (1) Dishonesty (Ivey test), (2) Intent to cause gain/loss, (3) Knowledge of possible falsity.
- R v Adams: Clarified intent and falsehood awareness.
- Applies to written, spoken, or online statements. Includes omitted facts if misleading.
Defences
- Duress: Threat of serious harm. Must be immediate and unavoidable. Not for murder (R v Howe). R v Hasan:
Association with criminals removes defence.
- Duress of Circumstances: Emergency situation, same test as above (R v Martin).
- Necessity: Rare. Only where harm avoided is greater (Re A).
- Intoxication: Voluntary = only defence to specific intent if D lacked MR (Sheehan); Basic intent = no defence
(Majewski). Involuntary = possible (R v Kingston).
- Self-defence: Honest belief needed (R v Gladstone Williams). Must be proportionate (CJIA 2008). Householder =
more leeway unless grossly excessive.
- Insanity: M’Naghten rules. Internal condition caused loss of understanding (R v Kemp). Must not know act or
wrongness (R v Windle).
- Automatism: External cause (Quick = insulin). Total loss of control needed (AG Ref No 2 of 1992).
- Consent: Only valid for minor harm (sports, tattoos). Not valid for serious harm (R v Brown). R v Wilson allowed
branding as private matter.
- Mistake: Honest belief may negate MR (R v Morgan). Must relate to fact, not law.
- Loss of Control: CJA 2009. Trigger (fear/anger) + loss + similar person (R v Clinton). No planning allowed.
Police Powers
- Stop & Search (PACE s1): Must be based on reasonable suspicion. Can’t rely on stereotypes. Code A: Record
required.
- Arrest (PACE s24): Reasonable grounds + necessity test (e.g., prevent harm, investigation). D must be told
grounds.
- Detention: 24 hrs max (36 for serious offences). Must inform rights: legal advice, silence, review.
- Search: s18 (premises after arrest), s32 (search of person/property at arrest). Must be linked to offence.
