Gross Negligence Manslaughter

Gross Negligence Manslaughter

R v Bateman [1925] 19 Cr App R 8: Involved a doctor who attended a childbirth. After the child was born part of the uterus came away from the woman, she died. He was charged with gross negligence manslaughter. In his defence he said that he had followed normal medical procedures. Due to this he was found not guilty. The judge defined gross negligence manslaughter as: “the facts must be such that, in the opinion of the jury, the negligence of the accused went beyond a mere matter of compensation between subjects and showed such disregard for the life and safety of other as to amount to a crime against the state and conduct deserving punishment”.

Andrews v DPP [1937] AC 576: Defendant drove at night on the wrong side of the road, he killed a person. He was found guilty of gross negligence manslaughter. The judge stated that “a very high degree of negligence is required. The work reckless most nearly covers the case”.

R v Adomako [1993] 2 All ER 79: A duty of case must exist between the defendant and the victim, the negligence arising from the breach of duty caused the death of the victim and in the opinion of the jury this amounts to gross negligence, having regard to the risk of death involved was the conduct so bad in all the circumstances that it amounts to a criminal act or omission.

There must be an existence of a duty

R v Adomako [1993] 2 All ER 79: The normal principles of negligence will determine if a duty exists. Persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in my contemplation.

Wacker [2003]: Involved Chinese immigrants in the back of a lorry. The defendant closed the air vents to avoid detection. 2 of the 60 immigrants survived. Held, he owed a duty of care to those whom you are in crime with and was convicted of gross negligence manslaughter.

Evans [2009] EWCA Crim 650: Defendant brought drugs home for her 16 year old sister. The sister self-injected the drug. Held, she owed a duty of care to her sister because she had created a dangerous situation by supplying the drugs.

R v Rungzabe Khan and Taher Khan [1998] Crim LR 830: Defendants supplied drugs to the victim and delivered them to the victim’s flat, she took the drugs and her body rejected them, she was writhing on the bed in pain. The defendants left her and she died. The prosecution argued that the defendants owed a duty of care to the victim by the fact that they had supplied the drugs. Held, they couldn’t have a duty of care based purely on supply.

Stone and Dobinson [1977]: The defendants lived together. Stone’s sister came to live with them, she suffered from anorexia. Stone was described as 67, partially deaf, blind and of low intelligence. Dobinson was described as 45, ineffectual and inadequate. The defendants could not use a telephone. The sister became increasingly ill. The defendants tried to find a doctor and the neighbour phoned for a doctor who did not attend. The sister died. Held, the owed a duty of care.

Willoughby [2004] EWCA Crim 3365: The owner of the Locomotive pub in Canterbury hired his victim to burn down his pub. Both the defendant and the victim spread petrol around the pub and set it alight. The explosion killed the accomplice when the building collapsed. Held, he owed a duty of care to a fellow criminal and was convicted of gross negligence manslaughter and unlawful act manslaughter.

Sinclair [1998] 148 NLJ 1353: Involved close friends. He had previously supplied the victim with methadone, the defendant had obtained a fatal dose, and he stayed with him and did not contact the emergency services, the victim died. Sinclair owed a duty of care as he supplied the drug, stayed with him and was his friend.

Ruffel [2003] EWCA Crim 122: Victim injected heroin at the defendant’s house. The victim became unwell, the defendant splashed him with water and placed him next to a radiator and wrapped him in towels. The next morning the victim was still unwell, the defendant phoned the victim’s mum and told her to collect him and then placed him outside. The mum asked him to put him back inside the house. The victim died. The duty of care was based on three things, the victim was a guest, a friend and the defendant had made attempts to revive him. The defendant was guilty of gross negligence manslaughter.

Pitwood [1902] 19 TLR 37: The defendant was employed as a crossing gate keeper, he left the gates open when they should have been closed. A horse and cart went across the track and was struck down by a train. The defendant argued that although he was employed as a gate keeper, his obligations were to his employer. Held, given the nature of his employment it extended a duty to the general public and he was found guilty.

Gibbons and Proctor [1918] 80 Crim App R24: The man’s child lived with him and his mistress. The child died through starvation. The man was held to owe a duty of care to his child by virtue of him being a parent. This mistress received money for the household food, she lived there and this created a duty to the child.

R v Adomako [1993] 2 All ER 79: Held doctors owe a duty of care to their patients.

R v Dalloway [1847] 2 Cox 273: The defendant was driving a horse and cart down a road without holding on to the reins. A child ran in front of the cart and was killed. The defendant was not liable as he would not have been able to stop the cart in time even if he had been holding the reins. This case is authority for the point that the result must be caused by a culpable act. Here the culpable act was not holding the reins, which was not the cause of death. The defendant was charged with gross negligence manslaughter for his involvement in an incident involving a train becoming derailed. The defendant was the foreman of some works being carried out on the track. He misread the train time-table and ordered the work to be done at a time when the train was due. In addition the lookout man was not standing at the correct distance to give an adequate warning and the driver was not paying sufficient attention to stop the train in time. The defendant argued that if the lookout man and driver were doing their job correctly the incident would not have occurred. Held, The defendant's conviction was upheld. The defendant's action need not be the only cause. Liability can arise provided the defendant's act was more than a minimal cause.

The breach involves a risk of death

The defendant’s actions must breach the duty of care and this caused the death of the victim.

Litchfield [1998] Crim LR 508 CA: The master of a yacht ran aground in Cornwall killing 3 of the 14 members of his crew. The skipper was aware when he set off that he had contaminated fuel in the engines. This caused the result of the engines stopping. Held, he was guilty of gross negligence manslaughter.
The breach of the duty amounts to gross negligence

It is for the jury to decide if the defendant’s conduct carried a risk of death and that it was so bad to become criminal and described as grossly negligent.

R v Misra & Srivastava [2005] 1 Cr App R 328: The two appellant doctors were convicted of gross negligence manslaughter following the death of a post-operative patient under their care. The patient developed an infection in the wound which was undiagnosed and therefore untreated despite obvious symptoms. The patient died of toxic shock as a result of the untreated infection. The appellants sought to challenge the test of gross negligence manslaughter laid down in Adomako (ie. whether having regard to the risk of death involved, the conduct of the defendant was so bad in all the circumstances as to amount in the jury's opinion to a criminal act or omission.)The appellants argued that this test was circular and required the jury to set their own level of criminality which essentially should be a question of law. The appellants raised Articles 6 & 7 of the European Convention of Human Rights in that the uncertainty created by the Adomako test meant they had been deprived of the right to a fair trial and the uncertainty also meant that at the time the action was committed it was not possible to determine whether the actions were criminal. Held, the conviction was upheld. The Adomako test did not infringe Convention Rights.