Involuntary Manslaughter – Gross Negligence Manslaughter

Difference between Voluntary and Involuntary Manslaughter In involuntary manslaughter, D does not intend to kill or cause serious harm – No Mens Rea Maximum sentence for involuntary manslaughter is life imprisonment – but discretionary – judge can impose non-custodial sentence Two forms of involuntary manslaughter: Gross Negligence Manslaughter Unlawful Act Manslaughter (sometimes called constructive manslaughter)

What do you remember about negligence? Duty of care Breach of duty Breach caused the loss

Definition of Gross Negligence Manslaughter Where a person dies as a result of negligence of another and the degree of negligence by D is sufficiently serious to make him criminally liable for the death Bateman – test for GNM – does the conduct of D show such disregard for life and safety of others to amount to a crime against the state and conduct deserving of punishment? Andrews – simple lack of care that would constitute civil liability is not enough – need a very high degree of negligence Adomako – leading modern case on GNM. An anaesthetist failed to notice a disconnected tube during an operation – convicted of GNM. Elements required to prove GNM are: Duty of care exists on part of D towards victim Breach of that duty which causes death The gross negligence is such as to be considered criminal by the jury

Duty of Care Donoghue and Stevenson – duty of care owed to persons who are so closely and directly affected by act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are called into question – neighbour principle Adomako – confirmed that normal principles of negligence in civil law (as above) should apply when ascertaining duty of care Stone and Dobinson – D’s voluntarily agreed to look after elderly lady and therefore owed her a duty of care. D’s failed to feed her or get medical care and she died. Convicted of GNM Litchfield – contractual duty of care owed towards crew by ship owner and master Singh – duty of care owed towards tenants Wacker – victim being complicit in a crime does not prevent a duty of care being owed to him. D had agreed to carry illegal immigrants in his lorry on a cross channel ferry and the air vent enabling them to breathe had been closed for the duration of the crossing. 58 immigrants died from suffocation – D owed victims duty of care Miller – duty by creation of a dangerous situation

Breach of duty Those with an established duty of care, must act as a "reasonable person would do in their position". R v DPP ex parte Jones - It does not matter that D did not appreciate the risk (the foreseeable risk of death) only that the risk would have been obvious to a reasonable person in the defendant's position. Objective test

Risk of Death Must be a risk of death for gross negligence to be found. There has been some development in this area over time: Bateman – test for risk of death was a “disregard for the life and safety of others” Stone and Dobinson – test for risk of death was a risk to the “health and welfare” of the victim Adomako – approved both tests Misra and Srivastava – court confirmed that only risk of death will be sufficient

Gross Negligence Bateman – negligence must be “gross” and go “beyond a mere matter of compensation between subjects” Adomako – approved the test in Bateman – it is for the jury to decide whether the breach of duty of care was serious enough to amount to gross negligence, taking into account all of the evidence. Adomako – conduct must be 'reprehensible' Finlay – boy scout died on Snowden. D (scout master) conduct did not show such disregard for life and safety as to amount to gross negligence Edwards – parents allowed children to play on the railway and children were killed by a train – held to be grossly negligent and guilty of GNM

Mens Rea? None – D does not have intention to kill or cause serious harm D is judged on his behaviour rather than his state of mind Must be an obvious risk of death but this is judged objectively so it doesn’t matter if D did not see the risk

Answering Questions on GNM Did D owe V a duty of care? Was there a breach in duty which directly resulted in V’s death? Was there a risk of death? Was the negligence serious enough to give rise to criminal liability?

Geoff is the driver of a train on a rural branch line Geoff is the driver of a train on a rural branch line. He is looking at the list of horses in a race that day, and so he fails to notice a red signal. Rounding a bend, the train hits a closed crossing gate and ploughs into a car. The driver of the car is killed. Hank, together with his mate Ian, has stolen a car. As a result of Hank driving too fast, the car crashes. Ian is seriously injured but Hank suffers only slight bruising and whiplash. Hank runs away from the scene without summoning any medical help for Ian. Medical help would have saved Ian, but without it he dies of his injuries. Jim is an electrician. He is called to Kylie’s house to do some rewiring. Having double-booked himself, Jim is in a great hurry to get to another job. In his haste, he inadvertently wires up the mains electricity to the plumbing. Kylie is fatally electrocuted when she tries to turn on the tap in her kitchen.