Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
involuntary manslaughter (gross negligence manslaughter) - Coggle Diagram
involuntary manslaughter (gross negligence manslaughter)
owe a duty of care
adomako established that the normal rules of negligence apply to duty and breach of duty for GNM
this can be a duty under criminal law (wacker) or duty under negligence
the normal rules apply when deciding if there is a duty under negligence
these were established in caparo v dickman, 1. reasonable foreseeability of harm, 2. proximity of relationship (time or space), 3. fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty
if it is well established that a duty will be owed then there is no need to go through the three part test as confirmed in robinson v cc of west yorkshire providing that it is in the public interest for a duty to exist
breach of duty
the normal rules of negligence apply
the defendant is judged according to the standards if the reasonable man or reasonable competent body of professionals (bolam v friern nhs trust)
no allowances are made for inexperience (nettleship v weston)
a child is judged according to the reasonable child of the same age (mullin v richards)
obvious risk of death
there must be an obvious risk of death in the activity
in singh it was determined that the jury must be directed that 'the circumstances must be such that a reasonably prudent person would have foreseen a serious and obvious risk not of injury, or even serious injury, but of death'
this is an objective test- the reasonably prudent person
the breach must cause death
normal rules of causation apply
gross negligence
the fact that the defendant has been negligent is not sufficient for GNM
the negligence has to be 'gross'
'showed such disregard for the life and safety of others as to amount to a crime'
'so bad in all the circumstances to amount in the jury's judgement to a criminal act or omission' Bateman confirmed in adomako