5392539
Beschreibung
Karteikarten von Chantal Briancon, aktualisiert more than 1 year ago
|
Erstellt von Chantal Briancon
vor mehr als 8 Jahre
|
|
| Frage | Antworten |
| What is gross negligence manslaughter? | Gross negligence manslaughter is an offence where the defendant owes a duty of care to the victim and this duty of care is breached, causing the death of the victim. It is an offence which carries a sentence of life imprisonment. |
| R V ADAMAKO | Established the key elements that establish gross negligence manslaughter. |
| The defendant owed a duty of care | It must be established that the defendant owed a duty of care to the victim. |
| The incremental apporach | A duty of care can be established in two ways. The incremental approach is where the courts look at whether there are existing precedents governing the particular case. Where there is no such precedent the courts will consider, the reasonable forseeability that the victim would be harmed, the proximity of the relationship and whether it is fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty - as held in Carparo v Dickman. |
| DONOGHUE V STEVENSON | Established duty of care. |
| R V ADAMAKO | 'The ordinary principles of law of negligence apply to ascertain whether or not the defendant has been in breach of a duty'. |
| R V WACKER | The defendant owed a duty of care as it was reasonably foreseeable that the victim would be injured by his breach of duty. |
| R V WILLOUGHBY | Where a duty of care is already established, the judge can direct the jury that the duty of care exists. |
| R V EVANS | The Court of Appeal held that a duty of care is a question of law. It also held that gross negligence manslaughter can be established through an omission as well as an act. |
| The defendant must have breached the duty of care | It must be established that the defendant breached his duty of care by allowing his conduct to fall below the expected conduct of a reasonable person. Where the defendant has special knowledge/expertise, he will be expected to meet the standard of care expected of a reasonable person with this knowledge/expertise. |
| R V ADAMAKO | The defendant was an anaesthetist, and therefore, had special knowledge and expertise. He was expected to meet the standard of care of a reasonable person with the same knowledge and expertise as him. |
| R V LITCHFIELD | The defendant owed a duty of care which he clearly breached. He was the captain of the ship and therefore, he did not meet the standard of care expected of a reasonable person with the same role. |
| R V SIGNH | The defendant breached his duty of care by not meeting the standard of care expected of a reasonable person who was also an apartment owner. |
| The defendant's actions must cause the victim's death. | Factual causation and legal causation must be established. It must also be clear that there were no intervening acts and that the thin skull rule does not apply. |
| The negligence must be gross | It must be clear that the negligence of the defendant was grossly negligent. |
| R V BATEMAN | This was defined as being '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'. |
| ANDREWS V DPP | Confirmed the case of R v Bateman. |
| R V ADAMAKO | 'Whether having regard to the risk of death involved, the conduct of the defendant was so bad in all circumstances as to amount to their judgement to a criminal act or omission'. |
| ATTORNEYS GENERAL REFERENCE NO.2 | The evidence of the defendant's state of mind is not necessary in order for a conviction of unlawful act manslaughter. |
| MISTRA AND SRIVASTAVA | The question for the jury is whether the defendant's negligence was gross...this is not a question of law, but one of fact'. |
Möchten Sie mit GoConqr kostenlos Ihre eigenen Karteikarten erstellen? Mehr erfahren.