FATAL OFFENCES - Involuntary Manslaughter: Gross Negligence Manslaughter (GNM)

GROSS NEGLIGENCE MANSLAUGHTER (GNM) EXAM QUESTION STRUCTURE:

Intro: Defendant(name) does not have malice aforethought (intention to kill or cause GBH)
and so may be guilty of involuntary manslaughter.

Apply: Here, it is gross negligence manslaughter (GNM) in relation to (name) the victim’s (v)
death.

(P1) State the duty of care: The requirements for GNM were set out in Adomako. First, the d
must have owed v a duty of care.

Apply: How does d owe v a duty of care – identify one of the following:

 Under a contract (Pittwood)

 A special relationship (Gibbons and Proctor)
 Voluntary assumption of care (Stone and Dobinsons)
 Creation of a dangerous situation (Miller)

(P2) State the breach of duty of care: Secondly, d must have breached the duty. The breach
can be by an act or omission. The test for breach of duty is the same as in civil law. D must
have fallen below the standard of care expected of the 'reasonable man' performing the
activity involved (Blyth v Birmingham waterworks/Adomako)

Apply: Here, d has failed to reach the standard of the reasonable man doing (insert d's act/
omission) because he has acted/failed to act..............

(P3) State causation: Thirdly, the breach must cause death. This means factual and legal
causation must be proven.

Apply: For factual causation, “but for” test (Pagett)

For legal causation, D was the operative and substantial cause (Pagett/smith)

Intervening act?

(P4) State the objective risk of death: Fourthly, the breach must create an objective risk of
death, not just of harm (Misra).

Apply: would a reasonable person have realised there was a risk of death.

(P5) State if there is a high degree of negligence: The last requirement is that the negligence
is 'gross' (Bateman confirmed in Adomako). Whether the negligence is gross is a matter for
the jury to decide. Does the negligence go 'beyond a mere matter of compensation and
show such disregard for the life and safety of others as to amount to a crime against the
state and conduct deserving punishment’?
Apply: Identify and balance the factors in the scenario which show that d did/did not show a
disregard for the life and safety of v. Use all the facts you are given to decide how bad the
negligence was. Remember for the purposes of criminal law, a very high degree of
negligence is required.

Conclusion: As all the elements of gross negligence manslaughter are satisfied/not satisfied
d would be found guilty/not guilty. If d is guilty of GNM the sentence is at the discretion of
the judge up to a maximum of life imprisonment.

PRACTICE QUESTION:

Evan and Freddy agreed that they would drive to a section of railway track, where they
would steal copper cable used in signalling. When they got to the track, it was dark, and a
train was passing. Evan stumbled and was in danger of falling under the train. In saving
Evan, Freddy himself was stuck a glancing blow by the corner of a wagon. Evan tried for
some time but failed to revive Freddy. Evan then left him and drove home. When he
arrived, he opened the door of his car without looking and struck George, who was
walking past. George responded angrily by throwing Evan against his car. George had half
turned away when Evan punched him on the jaw. As George fell, he struck his head
heavily on the pavement and died from the resulting brain damage. Freddy was not found
until next morning and died later in the day.

Discuss the possible criminal liability of Evan for the involuntary manslaughter of Freddy
and of George.

Defendant (Evan) does not have malice aforethought (intention to kill or cause GBH) and so maybe
guilty of involuntary manslaughter. Here, it is gross negligence manslaughter (GNM) in relation to
(Freddy) the victims’ death.

The requirements for GNM were set out in Adomako. First, the defendant must have owed the
victim a duty of care. Identify one of these - under a contract a special relationship voluntary
assumption of care creation of a dangerous situation. Evan has a duty of care towards Freddy as he
tried to revive Freddy from being stuck below the corner of a wagon. Evan owes Freddy a duty of
care as it was a voluntary assumption of care. Evan left Freddy and drove away which is an omission.

Secondly, the defendant must have breached the duty. The breach can be by an act or omission. The
test for breach of duty is the same as in civil law. The defendant must have fallen below the standard
of care expected of the 'reasonable man' performing the activity involved (Blyth v Birmingham
waterworks/Adomako). Here, Evan has failed to reach the standard of the reasonable man as he left
Freddy and drove off.

Thirdly, the breach must cause death. This means factual and legal causation must be proven. For
factual causation, but for Evan leaving Freddy, Freddy would not have been found the next day and
died later from his injuries. Therefore, Evan is the factual cause (Pagett). For legal causation, Evan is
also the operative and substantial cause (Pagett). There are no intervening acts
Fourthly, the breach must create an objective risk of death, not just harm (Misra). A reasonable
person may have foreseen that leaving someone overnight stuck under the corner of a wagon would
have led to some form of harm and discomfort even death. Here Evan has created an objective risk
of death by leaving Freddy do not need.

The last requirement is that the negligence is 'gross' (Bateman confirmed in Adomako). Whether the
negligence is gross is a matter for the jury to decide. Does the negligence go 'beyond a mere matter
of compensation and show such disregard for the life and safety of others as to amount to a crime
against the state and conduct deserving punishment? Here, Evan has shown a disregard for the life
and safety of Freddy. He did try for some time to help Freddy but concluded there was nothing else
he could do so decided to drive home, not to get help. Freddy has no way of getting home as he
came together with Evan. Evan has shown a disregard for the life and safety of Freddy therefore
there is a high degree of negligence.

As all the elements of gross negligence manslaughter are satisfied Evan would be found guilty. If
Evan is guilty of GNM the sentence is at the discretion of the judge up to a maximum of life
imprisonment.

Defendant (Evan) does not have malice aforethought (intention to kill or cause GBH) and so maybe
guilty of involuntary manslaughter. Here, it is an unlawful act manslaughter (UAM) in relation to
George's death.

For UAM, first, there must be an unlawful criminal act (Lamb). In Lamb, there was no unlawful act
because an assault was not committed. An omission is not enough (Lowe). In this case, an s.20
offence has been committed. The actus reus of this crime of this offence is wounding or inflicting
grievous bodily harm. Evan has done this by punching George, causing him to strike his head on the
pavement and later die of brain damage.

The unlawful act must be dangerous. In church, the court outlined the test for dangerousness which
was that the act must be such as ''all sober and reasonable people would inevitably recognize must
subject the other person to the risk of some physical harm, albeit not serious harm''. The defendant
does not need to have foreseen that some harm will occur from his action (DPP v Newbury and
Jones). In this case, there was a dangerous act because Evan's actions caused some physical harm
towards George, (refer to the question, what were Evan’s actions?) A reasonable person would
realize that punching someone could cause some harm, albeit not serious harm.

The unlawful act must cause death. This means factual and legal causation must be proven. For
factual causation, but for Evan punching George, George would not have fallen, struck his head on
the pavement causing injuries, and died. Therefore, Evan is the factual cause (Pagett) For legal
causation, Evan is also the operative and substantial cause (Pagett/smith). There are no intervening
acts.

The defendant need only have the mens rea for the original unlawful act and need not intend or
have foreseen the risk of death. In Lamb, the defendant also did not have the mens rea for assault.
Here, the original unlawful act was an s.20 offence. The mens rea of this crime, therefore, is the
intention to inflict, or recklessness as to inflicting some harm, albeit not serious harm. Here, Evan has
the mens rea of recklessness as there was a risk of causing some harm from punching someone, but
he carried it out anyway (Cunningham).

As all elements of UAM are satisfied Evan would be found guilty and sentenced at the discretion of
the judge up to a maximum of life imprisonment.