Homicide Voluntary

Manslaughter

Gross Negligence
Manslaughter

Homicide Involuntary
Manslaughter
Gross Negligence Manslaughter

The Law Bank

Homicide Voluntary
Manslaughter

Gross Negligence
Manslaughter

Starter Match the cases and tests to the right area

Unlawful Act

Dangerous Act
Psychological harm
may be enough

Can be targeted
at a third party
LOWE
Must be an act
not omission
GOODFELL
OW
DHAWALI
The Law Bank

FRANKLIN
Can be targeted
at property

CHURCH
Can take into account
anything which is obvious
to the reasonable person
DAWSON

LAMB
Must be a risk of
some harm obvious
to the reasonable
person

Must be a criminal,
not a civil wrong

Must be an,
unlawful act

MITCHELL

Homicide Voluntary
Manslaughter

Gross Negligence
Manslaughter

Objectives
Identify the meaning of gross negligence
manslaughter
Explaincases that illustrate gross negligence
manslaughter
Apply the law to problem questions on gross
negligence manslaughter
The Law Bank

Homicide Voluntary
Manslaughter

Gross Negligence
Manslaughter

What is involuntary manslaughter?

Involuntary
The defendant has the actus reus of
murder (unlawful killing) but does
not satisfy the mens rea of murder
(intention to kill or cause GBH)

Reckless
Manslaughter

Gross
Negligence
Manslaughter

Appropriate for
Criminal liability

Causing death

Breach of duty

Duty of care

Existence is
uncertain

Fills the gaps

The Law Bank

Causing Death

Dangerousness

Unlawful Act

Constructi
ve
(Unlawful
Act)
Manslaug
hter

Homicide Voluntary
Manslaughter

Gross Negligence
Manslaughter

What is gross negligence

manslaughter?
D is ostensibly acting lawfully.
D has caused death but neither intended to cause death nor
intended to cause serious bodily harm and thus lacks the mens
rea of murder.
In constructive act D commits an unlawful act which results in
death.
Gross negligence manslaughter is not dependant on
demonstrating an unlawful act has been committed.
In Gross negligence manslaughter D commits a lawful act in
such a way as to render the actions criminal.
Gross negligence manslaughter can be committed by omission.

The Law Bank

Homicide Voluntary
Manslaughter

Gross Negligence
Manslaughter

It all starts with Bateman (1925)

Read the case notes on Bateman.
What are the key elements of the
offence as established by Lord Hewitt
CJ?
What is the difference between this
and the Tort law concept of
negligence?
Are there any problems with Hewitts
ruling in Bateman?

The Law Bank

Homicide Voluntary
Manslaughter

Gross Negligence
Manslaughter

R v Bateman (1925) 19 Cr App R 8

A doctor was convicted of manslaughter arising out of his treatment of a woman in
childbirth. Lord Hewitt CJ gave the following guidance in relation to gross negligence
manslaughter:
Principle "If A has caused the death of B by alleged negligence, then, in order to
establish civil liability, the plaintiff must prove (in addition to pecuniary loss caused by
the death) that A owed a duty to B to take care, that that duty was not discharged,
and that the default caused the death of B. To convict A of manslaughter, the
prosecution must prove the three things above mentioned and must satisfy the jury, in
addition, that A's negligence amounted to a crime. In the civil action, if it is proved
that A fell short of the standard of reasonable care required by law, it matters not how
far he fell short of that standard. The extent of his liability depends not on the degree
of negligence but on the amount of damage done. In a criminal court, on the contrary,
the amount and degree of negligence are the determining question. There must be
mens rea. In order to establish criminal liability 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
others as to amount to a crime against the State and conduct deserving punishment."

The Law Bank

Homicide Voluntary
Manslaughter

Gross Negligence
Manslaughter

The circular argument

1. Andrews followed Bateman but
This was considered unsatisfactory
as the test was circular in that the
jury were being told in effect to
convict of a crime if they thought a
crime had been committed.
Andrews v DPP[1937]

The Law Bank

Homicide Voluntary
Manslaughter

Gross Negligence
Manslaughter

Andrews v DPP (1937) HL

D killed a pedestrian whilst attempting to pass another car by
driving well over on the offside of the road. D had been sent by his
employer to assist a disabled vehicle.
PrincipleThe facts must be such that the negligence of the
accused went beyond a mere matter of compensation between
subjects and showed such a disregard for the life and safety of
others as to amount to a crime against the State and conduct
deserving punishment.
Lord Atkin quoted the passage from Bateman and introduced the
word "reckless" to denote the degree of negligence required. He
conceded, however, that the word would not cover all cases and
that there was still scope for manslaughter by a high degree of
negligence. He excluded "mere inadvertence" but said that some
forms of inadvertence might suffice. Conviction for manslaughter
should follow if the defendant was proved to have had a "criminal
The Law Bank
9
disregard" for the safety of others.

Homicide Voluntary
Manslaughter

Gross Negligence
Manslaughter

Post Andrews
Because of Andrews gross
negligence manslaughter
was largely replaced with
reckless manslaughter:
R v Seymour [1983]

R v Lawrence [1982]
The Law Bank

R v Kong Cheuk Kwan v

The Queen (1985)
10

Homicide Voluntary
Manslaughter

Gross Negligence
Manslaughter

R v Lawrence (Stephen) [1982] AC 510 House of Lords

D was driving a motorcycle along an urban street and collided with
a pedestrian, causing her death.
PrincipleLord Diplock formulated a standard direction to a jury
based on reckless manslaughter: manslaughter by recklessness is
established first, where D is driving the vehicle in such a
manner as to create an obvious and serious risk of causing
physical injury to some other person who might happen to be using
the road or of doing substantial damage to property; and second,
where D did so without having given any thought to the possibility
of there being any such risk, or, having recognised that there was
some risk involved, had nonetheless gone on to take it."

The Law Bank

11

Homicide Voluntary
Manslaughter

Gross Negligence
Manslaughter

R v Seymour [1983] 2 AC 493 House of Lords

The appellant had a heated argument with his girlfriend. He then
tried to push her car with his lorry. Unfortunately he crushed her as
she was trapped between the lorry and the car.
Principle "Where manslaughter is charged and the circumstances
are that the victim was killed as a result of the reckless driving of
the defendant on a public highway, the trial judge should give the
jury the direction suggested in R v Lawrence but it is appropriate
also to point out that in order to constitute the offence of
manslaughter the risk of death being caused by the manner of the
defendant's driving must be very high."

The Law Bank

12

Homicide Voluntary
Manslaughter

Gross Negligence
Manslaughter

Kong Cheuk Kwan v The Queen (1985) 82 Cr App R 18 PC

The appellants were officers of two hydrofoils involved in a collision
causing death.
Principle The Privy Council held that the reckless manslaughter
test formulated in R v Lawrenceshould be applied.

The Law Bank

13

Homicide Voluntary
Manslaughter

Gross Negligence
Manslaughter

Then came R vAdamako (1994)

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.

What was Ds duty to V?

What had he failed to do?
When do you think that he goes from simple
negligence to gross negligence?
What is the key question when looking at the
negligence of D?
What did the expert witnesses think of his
conduct?
What are the four key elements of manslaughter
by gross negligence?
What does Lord Mackay think of R v Seymour?
Which other duties and cases can you think of
which may fall into this area of the law?

The Law Bank

14

Homicide Voluntary
Manslaughter

Gross Negligence
Manslaughter

R vAdomako [1994] 3 WLR 288 House of Lords

The appellant was an anaesthetist in charge of a patient during an
eye operation. During the operation an oxygen pipe became
disconnected and the patient died. The appellant failed to notice or
respond to obvious signs of disconnection. The jury convicted him
of gross negligence manslaughter.
Principle His conviction for gross negligence manslaughter was
upheld. The Lords ruled that the law as stated in R v Seymour
[1983] 2 A.C. 493 should no longer apply since the underlying
statutory provisions on which it rested have now been repealed by
the Road Traffic Act 1991.

The Law Bank

15

Homicide Voluntary
Manslaughter

Gross Negligence
Manslaughter

The Gross Negligence Rules

Following Adomako it was necessary for the prosecution to
establish that the defendant:
1.
2.
3.
4.

Owed a duty of care to the victim

Was in breach of duty
The breach of duty caused death
The defendant's conduct was so bad in all the
circumstances as to amount in the jury's opinion to a
crime.

The Law Bank

16

Homicide Voluntary
Manslaughter

Gross Negligence
Manslaughter

Element 1 Duty of Care

The Rules

1. Ordinary principles of
negligence in civil law (as per
Donoghue) should apply when
ascertaining a Duty of Care in
criminal cases
Donoghue v Stevenson (1932)
You must take reasonable care to avoid acts and omissions which you
can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbours. Who
then is my neighbour? The answer seems to be persons who are so
closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have
them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind
to
acts
omissions which are called into question.
The
Lawor
Bank
17

Homicide Voluntary
Manslaughter

Gross Negligence
Manslaughter

Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562

Mrs Donoghue went to MinchellasWellmeadow Cafe in Paisley with
a friend. The friend ordered ice cream over which part of a bottle of
ginger beer was poured. When the remainder of the ginger beer
was poured, it was found to contain a decomposed snail. Mrs
Donoghue became ill through having consumed contaminated
ginger beer.

PrincipleThe rule that you are to love your neighbour become in

law, you must not injure your neighbour; and the lawyers question,
Who is my neighbour? Receives a restricted reply. You must take
reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions, which you can
reasonably foresee, would be likely to injure your neighbour. Who,
then, in law is my neighbour? The answer seems to be - persons
who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought
reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected
when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are
The Law Bank
18
called in question.

Homicide Voluntary
Manslaughter

Gross Negligence
Manslaughter

Stone and Dobinson [1977] 2 All ER 341

S and D allowed an ill and unstable sister to live in their house; she
died after they failed to call for medical attention.
Principle Geoffrey Lane LJ: The duty which the defendant has
undertaken is a duty of caring for the health and welfare of the
infirm person. What the prosecution have to provide is a breach of
that duty in such circumstances that the jury feel convinced that
the defendants conduct can properly be described as reckless,
that is to say a reckless disregard of danger to the health and
welfare of the infirm person. Mere inadvertence is not enough.
The defendant must be proved to have been indifferent to an
obvious risk of injury to health, or actually to have foreseen the
risk but to have determined nevertheless to run it.
The Law Bank

19

Homicide Voluntary
Manslaughter

Gross Negligence
Manslaughter

Element 1 Duty of Care

The Rules

1. Stone and Dobinson owed

a duty because they
volunteered to look after
her
2. Can also arise from a
contractual duty
Litchfield [1998]

The Law Bank

20

Homicide Voluntary
Manslaughter

Gross Negligence
Manslaughter

Litchfield [1998] Crim LR 507

D a ships captain followed an unsafe course and relied too heavily
on his engines even though he knew the fuel was contaminated.
The ship foundered off the Cornish coast and three crew members
were drowned.
Principle It is up to the jury to decide whether or not negligence is
gross negligence even though negligently endangering a ship is a
statutory offence. The question for the jury is whether it amounts
to the crime of manslaughter.

The Law Bank

21

Homicide Voluntary
Manslaughter

Gross Negligence
Manslaughter

Element 1 Duty of Care

The Rules

The case of Singh (1999)

established a duty towards
tenants owed by landlord
faulty gas fire

R v Singh [1999]

The Law Bank

22

Homicide Voluntary
Manslaughter

Gross Negligence
Manslaughter

R v Singh [1999] Crim LR 582

D managed a block of flats where one of the tenants died of carbon
monoxide poisoning. The gas fires in many of the flats were unsafe,
and there had been complaints from other tenants.
Principle D had a duty of care.

The Law Bank

23

Homicide Voluntary
Manslaughter

Gross Negligence
Manslaughter

Element 1 Duty of Care

The Rules

In addition it has been held that

the defence of ex turpicausa,
which operates in civil law to
negate a duty of care where the
victim is acting is acting in the
course of a joint criminal
enterprise when injury is inflicted,
has no application in criminal law.

R vWacker[2002]

R v
Willoughby[2004]
The Law Bank

24

Homicide Voluntary
Manslaughter

Gross Negligence
Manslaughter

R vWacker [2003] 1 CR App R329 CA

The appellant was the driver of a lorry carrying 60 Chinese illegal
immigrants from Rotterdam to England. The lorry had a concealed
compartment in which the immigrants were placed. Once inside they
were sealed in. The lorry was a refrigerated lorry which meant that
there was no ventilation. There was one air vent. The immigrants were
told that if the vent was shut, they must be silent to avoid detection.
The appellant shut the vent 10 minutes before boarding the ferry. He
did not re-open it. The lorry was on the ferry for 10 hours.
Consequently 58 of immigrants suffocated. The appellant was
convicted of gross negligence manslaughter for each of the deaths. He
appealed on the grounds that one of the general principles of the law
of negligence, known by the Latin maxim of ex turpicausa non
orituractio, was that the law of negligence did not recognise the
relationship between those involved in a criminal enterprise as giving
rise to a duty of care owed by one participant to another.
Principle The principle of ex turpicausadid not operate in criminal law
to negate a duty of care.
The Law Bank
25

Homicide Voluntary
Manslaughter

Gross Negligence
Manslaughter

R v Willoughby [2004] EWCA Crim 3365 Court of Appeal

The appellant owned an old disused pub. He had become
increasingly in debt and was unable to sell the pub. He engaged Mr
Drury to help him set fire to the pub in order to claim on the
insurance. Unfortunately during the course of igniting the fire an
explosion occurred resulting in the building collapsing on Mr Drury
killing him. The appellant was convicted of gross negligence
manslaughter. He appealed contending that no duty of care was
owed in the circumstances.
PrincipleThe appeal was dismissed. The appellant's conviction was upheld.

The Law Bank

26

Homicide Voluntary
Manslaughter
Case
Singh 1999

Duty?

Gross Negligence
Manslaughter
Owed by
whom?

Facts?

Basis of
duty?

Duty to
maintain
property

Litchfield 1998

Captain and
crew

Khan& Khan
1998

Possible duty to
summon
assistance

Dias 2002
Pittwood 1902

Gate operator
and public

Wacker 2002

Simple duty
owed on facts
(despite illegal
nature)

Stone
&Dobinson
Harris & Harris
2003
Willoughby
The Law Bank

2004

Parents and
children
Person in joint
enterprise owes

Specific
relationship
27

Homicide Voluntary
Manslaughter

Gross Negligence
Manslaughter

Element 2 Breach of Duty

Duty
must
have
been
breached

The Law Bank

The
breach
caused
death

Liabili
ty for
D!

28

Homicide Voluntary
Manslaughter

Gross Negligence
Manslaughter

Element 2 Breach of duty

The Rules

1.What if the V does something

which puts them in danger, even
though they have been warned.
2.Does D still have a duty of
care?
R v Winters [2010]

The Law Bank

29

Homicide Voluntary
Manslaughter

Gross Negligence
Manslaughter

R v Winters [2010] EWCA Crim 1474

There was a fire on a farm. DD had stored fireworks in a metal
container, which they had no licence for. The fire brigade were
called. V1 was the media spokesman for the fire brigade, and V2
was the camera man. They were told to pull back, including by one
of the defendants. However, they didnt and the container
exploded killing both victims.
Principle The judges concluded that it was not arguablethat any
failure to comply with instructions in this case had the
consequence that no duty of care was owed to the victim. In other
words even though the Vs disobeyed the instructions of the DD,
the DD were still liable.

The Law Bank

30

Homicide Voluntary
Manslaughter

Gross Negligence
Manslaughter

Element 3 Gross Negligence

The Rules

1.The action must have been so

wrong in all the circumstances
as to be deserving of criminal
punishment.
2.Must go beyond civil liability
and mere compensation
3.This is left to the jury to decide
R v Bateman [1925]
The Law Bank

31

Homicide Voluntary
Manslaughter

Gross Negligence
Manslaughter

Element 4 Risk of Death

Stone and Dobinson

Bateman

O
R

Andrews v DPP

Which to choose?
Adomako:
In my opinion the law as stated in these two authorities [Bateman;
Andrews] is satisfactory as providing a proper basis for describing the
crime of involuntary manslaughter.... Examples in which this was done, to
my mind, with complete accuracy are Reg. v. Stone
The Law Bank

32

Homicide Voluntary
Manslaughter

Gross Negligence
Manslaughter

Element 4 Risk of Death

The solution R vMisra&
Another
The question is not whether Ds
negligence was gross and
additionally a crime but whether his
behaviour was grossly negligent and
consequently criminal Judge LJ
In other words: the outcome not the
offence is the only uncertain thing.
A risk of death only was sufficient

The Law Bank

33

Homicide Voluntary
Manslaughter

Gross Negligence
Manslaughter

R vMisra&Srivastava [2004] The Times

A patient had died as the result of the negligence of two doctors,
who were convicted of gross negligence manslaughter. On appeal
the defendants argued that the jury had been asked to define a
hitherto unknown crime. This was incompatible with their human
rights especially the right not to be punished for an act not defined
as an offence at the time it was performed.
PrincipleThe House of Lords held that the offence was compatible
with the defendants human rights. The jury had been asked to
decide as a matter of fact whether the defendants' gross
negligence was so reprehensible as to amount to gross
negligence thereby agreeing with the pre existing definition of the
crime.

The Law Bank

34

Homicide Voluntary
Manslaughter

Gross Negligence
Manslaughter

Element 4 Risk of death

Jury taking into
account all the
evidence which must
decide
Must decide if it
amounted to a risk or
death or an admission
Check out the two
cases as counter
points
The Law Bank

R v Edwards (2001)

R v Finlay [2001]

35

Homicide Voluntary
Manslaughter

Gross Negligence
Manslaughter

R v Finlay (2001) Unreported

D, a scout leader, was in charge of a party of scouts when one of
them, a 10 year old boy, fell to his death in Snowdon. There was
evidence that several of the safety procedures had not been
followed.
Principle Jury decided that Ds conduct did not show such
disregard for life and safety as to amount to gross negligence. He
was not guilty.

The Law Bank

36

Homicide Voluntary
Manslaughter

Gross Negligence
Manslaughter

R v Edwards (2001) unreported

A couple had allowed their seven year old daughter and her friend
to play on a railway bridge. They had promised to warn them if a
train approached but the children were killed by a train which the
defendants had not seen.
PrincipleThe jury decided they had ignored an obvious and serious
danger or had decided to take the risk and this amounted to gross
negligence. They were guilty and criminally liable.

The Law Bank

37

Homicide Voluntary
Manslaughter

Gross Negligence
Manslaughter

Element 5? Criminalty or Badness

The following case suggests

a fifth ingredient to Adamako of
criminality or badness:

Rowley v DPP [2003]

The Law Bank

38

Homicide Voluntary
Manslaughter

Gross Negligence
Manslaughter

Rowley v DPP [2003] EWHC 693 Divisional Court of the QBD

Malcolm Rowley, aged 30, had severe disabilities suffering from
quadriplegia, microcephaly and epilepsy. He was in residential care. He
drowned in the bath when he was left unattended. His mother bought an
action challenging the decision of the Crown Prosecution Service not to
prosecute the care providers. Her appeal against the decision was
unsuccessful.
Principle Kennedy LJ made the following observations of the law relating to
gross negligence manslaughter: "It is clear from what Lord Mackay said that
there is a fifth ingredient: "criminality" (albeit defining the ingredient in this
way "involves an element of circularity") or "badness". Using the word
"badness", the jury must be sure that the defendant's conduct was so bad
as in all the circumstances to amount "to a criminal act or omission". Lord
Hewart C.J. in Bateman used the words: "to amount to a crime against the
state and conduct deserving punishment", that is, conduct which does not
merely call for compensation but for criminal punishment.
The Law Bank

39

Homicide Voluntary
Manslaughter

Gross Negligence
Manslaughter

What about drug cases?

1. Lord Mackay, in Adamako, made it
clear that civil law concepts of
duty of care should apply in
deciding the criminal liability of a
person for gross negligence
manslaughter.
2. This has proved
problematicoutside the realm of
medical negligence and driving
cases.
3. In particular, the question of
whether a drug dealer owes a duty
of care to one whom hehas
supplied seems to be illogical
The Law Bank
although the courts have not ruled

R v Khan & Khan [1998]

40

Homicide Voluntary
Manslaughter

Gross Negligence
Manslaughter

R v Khan & Khan [1998] Crim LR 830 Court of Appeal

The two appellants sold heroin to a 15 year old girl at their flat.
This was the first time she had used heroin and she used twice the
amount generally used by an experienced user. She took the
heroin in the presence of the appellants. She fell into a coma and
the appellants left the flat leaving the girl alone when it was clear
that she required medical assistance. They returned to the flat the
following day and found her dead. Medical evidence was such that
if the girl had received medical assistance she would not have
died. They were convicted of gross negligence manslaughter and
appealed contending that a drug dealer does not owe a duty of
care to summon medical assistance to his client.
PrincipleThe convictions were quashed due to a misdirection but
the court did not rule out the possibility of a duty of care being
owed by drug dealers.
The Law Bank

41

Homicide Voluntary
Manslaughter

Gross Negligence
Manslaughter

What about drug cases?

The courts have already said it is not constructive act
manslaughter as Ds voluntary actions break the chain.
1. What was the ratio of the case?
2. What is the role of the jury in gross
negligence cases?
3. What had D done?
4. What was Ds duty and how was it
established?
Extension: What was the
5. Why was
the mother
not a subject
question
the court
should of the
appeal?
consider in determining whether
or not D owed a duty in this
situation?
The Law Bank

R v Evans (Gemma) [2009]

42

Homicide Voluntary
Manslaughter

Gross Negligence
Manslaughter

R v Evans [2009] 2 Cr App R 10 Court of Appeal

The appellant was convicted of gross negligence manslaughter along with her mother in
relation to the death of her 17 year old sister, Carly Townsend who died of a heroin overdose.
The appellant was 8 years older than her sister. The appellant, her mother and Carly all had a
history of heroin addiction. Carly had just been released on licence from a detention and
treatment order and a condition of the licence was that she resided at her mother's house.
The appellant moved in with her mother after her boyfriend was sent to prison. The appellant
bought some heroin and gave it to Carly. Carly self injected the heroin and then developed
symptoms which the appellant, from her own experience, recognised as being consistent with
an overdose. The appellant and her mother decided not to seek medical assistance for fear of
getting into trouble. Carly died. The appellant appealed against her conviction for gross
negligence manslaughter on the grounds that the judge had left it to the jury to decide
whether the appellant owed a duty of care and that it was wrong to leave this to the jury
where this would involve an extension of principles relating to duty of care.
Principle The judge was wrong to leave the jury to decide the issue of duty of care.

The existence, or otherwise, of a duty of care or a duty to act, is a question of law for
the judge: the question whether the facts establish the existence of the duty is for the
jury. However, the mis-direction did not render the conviction unsafe. The appellant's
duty of care arose not out of her familial relationship, nor from her actions in seeking
to care for Carly, but from her supplying the heroin. She had in effect created a
dangerous situation and failed to take action to reduce the risk by summoning medical
assistance which would have saved her.
The Law Bank

43

Homicide Voluntary
Manslaughter

Gross Negligence
Manslaughter

Mens Rea
The following case
confirmed that R
vAdomako required no
proof of mens rea on
behalf of the defendant.
Read the extract and
discuss what the judges
answered to the
following two questions
put to it by the Court of
Appeal:
The Law Bank

1. Can a defendant be properly

convicted of manslaughter by gross
negligence in the absence of evidence
as to that defendant's state of mind?
2. Can a non-human defendant be
convicted of the crime of manslaughter
by gross negligence in the absence of
evidence establishing the guilt of an
identified human individual for the
same crime?

AG Ref No 2 of 1999 [2000]

44

Homicide Voluntary
Manslaughter

Gross Negligence
Manslaughter

A-G ref no 2 of 1999 [2000] 2 Cr App R 207 Court of Appeal

This case arose from the Southall train crash in which 7 people died. The
driver was an experienced driver, but no second competent person was
with him. Two safety devices were fitted to prevent the train passing a
signal, however, both were turned off. The driver failed to notice two yellow
signals and consequently was travelling too fast to be able to stop in time at
the red signal. The train driver and the train company were prosecuted on 7
counts of manslaughter. The trial judge, Scott Baker J, ruled that it was a
condition precedent to a conviction for gross negligence manslaughter, for a
guilty mind to be proved. Also where the defendant was a company, the
company could only be convicted via the guilt of a human being.
PrincipleOn question 1 - yes a defendant can be properly convicted of
manslaughter by gross negligence in the absence of evidence as the
defendant's state of mind. The Adomako test is objective, but a defendant
who is reckless may well be the more readily found to be grossly negligent
to a criminal degree.
Question 2 - No
The Law Bank

45

Homicide Voluntary
Manslaughter

Gross Negligence
Manslaughter

Mens Rea
This was affirmed in the
following case where it
was ruled thatthe CPS
were wrong to base a
decisionnot to
prosecute on the lack of
subjective recklessness
of theemployer:

The Law Bank

R v DPP ex parte Jones [2000]

46

Homicide Voluntary
Manslaughter

Gross Negligence
Manslaughter

R v DPP ex parte Jones [2000] IRLR 373 Court of Appeal

Jones was decapitated by the jaws of grab bucket on a crane. The
Jaws of the bucket had been adapted so that open bags could be
attached to hooks fitted within the bucket which had made them
dangerous. The action was brought to challenge the decision not to
prosecute the employer for gross negligence manslaughter. The
CPS made the decision based on the lack of subjective
recklessness on the part of the managing director.
PrincipleThe CPS were wrong to base their decision on the lack of
subjective recklessness since a conviction does not require the
defendant to be subjectively reckless.

The Law Bank

47

Homicide Voluntary
Manslaughter

Gross Negligence
Manslaughter

Mens Rea
1. D does not have the intention to kill or cause
serious harm
2. This aspect of mens rea not present
3. Must show intention to create a dangerous
situation
4. Mainly will be recklessness

The Law Bank

48

Homicide Voluntary
Manslaughter

Gross Negligence
Manslaughter

What liability?
Unlawful Act, Gross Negligence or Voluntary
Manslaughter?

Geoff is the driver of a train on a

rural branch line. Because he is
looking at the list of runners in
the 3.30 race at Beverly that day
he fails to notice a signal at red.
Rounding a bend the train hits a
closed crossing gate and
ploughs into a car. The driver of
the car is killed.
The Law Bank

49

Homicide Voluntary
Manslaughter

Gross Negligence
Manslaughter

What liability?
Unlawful Act, Gross Negligence or Voluntary
Manslaughter?

Hank, together with his mate Ian has

stolen a car. As a result of his 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 him, but none being
forthcoming, Ian dies of his injuries.
The Law Bank

50

Homicide Voluntary
Manslaughter

Gross Negligence
Manslaughter

What liability?
Unlawful Act, Gross Negligence or Voluntary
Manslaughter?

Jim is an electrician. He is called

to Kylies 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
electrocuted when she tries to
turn on the tap in her kitchen.
The Law Bank

51

Homicide Voluntary
Manslaughter

Gross Negligence
Manslaughter

Apply the law

Answer the question
that is on your desk
using the
knowledge you now
have.
Remember IDEA
Use this sequence
for the E and A
parts:
The Law Bank

Did the defendant owe a duty of care

Was there a breach of duty which results

in death

Is the negligence so gross to be classed a

criminal
Was there a risk of death

Possibly is there criminality or badness

Dismiss mens rea as a result of AG Ref

52

Homicide Voluntary
Manslaughter

Gross Negligence
Manslaughter

Objectives
Identify the meaning of gross negligence
manslaughter
Explaincases that illustrate gross negligence
manslaughter
Apply the law to problem questions on gross
negligence manslaughter
The Law Bank

53