W/E 19th October 2007
This week we looked at the second type of involuntary manslaughter – gross negligence manslaughter. This arises where the defendant owes a duty of care to the victim and breaches that duty of care.
Adamako is the main case in this area. It was decided in by the House of Lords that a defendant could be convicted of involuntary gross negligence manslaughter by a breach of duty if;
1. the defendant was in breach of a duty of care towards the victim;
2. the breach of duty caused the death if the victim; and
3. the breach of duty was such as to be thought of as gross negligence and therefore a crime.
Breach of Duty
In AdomakoLord Makay stated that the ordinary principles of the law of negligence apply to decide whether the defendant owed the victim a duty of care. Refer to the case of Caparo v Dickman for the principles to establish a duty of care. A defendant will be in breach of duty of care by falling below the standard of care of the ordinary reasonable person.
Causing Death
The “but for” test from White can be used to establish factual causation. If there is a possibility of a novus actus interveniens then the usual rules on legal causation apply.
Gross Negligence
The jury must decide whether the actions were so grossly negligent that they should be classed as a crime, rather than a civil matter. They need to decide whether a reasonable person would have foreseen a serious and obvious risk of death. Was the conduct so bad in all circumstances to amount to a criminal act or omission.
Additional Reading
Please refer to your revision guides. Have a look at the BBC Website and research stories where defendants have been found guilty of gross negligence manslaughter. What sort of circumstances are they? If you have a better appreciation of how the law works in practice, you will understand the theory better.
