gross negligence manslaughter
what does adomako establish
normal rules of negligence apply to duty and breach of duty
wacker
duty of care -the duty can arise from criminal law on ommisions or the civil law of negligence
robinson v cc of west yorkshire
duty of care - a duty may already be well established
caparo v dickman
duty of care if not the 3 stage test is used to establish whether a duty is owed
bolam
breach of duty -The normal rules of negligence apply and the D will be judged against the standard of the reasonable man, or against the competent professional or competent body of professionals
nettleship v weston
breach of duty -no allowances are made for inexperience
mullin v richards
and if the D is a child, they will be judged according to the reasonable child of the same age
singh
t must then be established that there is a reasonable person would have foreseen a serious and obvious risk of death (Singh). This is an objective test.
white
but for test
kimsey
de minimis principle
blaue
no intervenjng acts and thin skull rule - take victim as you find them
ag ref no 2 1999-negligence
This is a question for the jury to decide. There is no need to establish any mens rea for this offence
bateman-negligence
In Bateman it was said that gross negligence was where the defendant showed such a disregard for the life and safety of others that it amounted to a crime.
adomako-negligence
In Adomako it was explained as conduct which was so bad in all the circumstances as to amount to a crime deserving of punishment.