Gross Negligence Manslaughter in UK Law

Leading Cases
  • The Queen v Joanne Rudling
    • Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
    • 21 Junio 2016

    They can be summarised as being the breach of an existing duty of care which it is reasonably foreseeable gives rise to a serious and obvious risk of death and does, in fact, cause death in circumstances where, having regard to the risk of death, the

    At the time of the breach of duty, there must be a risk of death, not merely serious illness; the risk must be serious; and the risk must be obvious. A GP faced with an unusual presentation which is worrying and undiagnosed may need to ensure a face to face assessment urgently in order to investigate further. A recognisable risk of something serious is not the same as a recognisable risk of death.

  • R v Holtom (Colin)
    • Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
    • 20 Abril 2010

    Furthermore, in the sentencing process for homicide cases, including deaths on the road, there is now a greater emphasis to be placed on the fatal consequences of a criminal act. The Lord Chief Justice explained the reason for this in some detail in the recent case of R v Appleby and Others [2009] EWCA Crim 2693 (a case altogether different from the present); see particularly paragraph 13, and in relation to deaths on the road, paragraph 20.

  • R (Imtiaz Amin) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; R (Middleton) v West Somerset Coroner
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 27 Marzo 2002

    One class is that of allegations of deliberate killing—murder—by servants of the State. A second is that of allegations of killing by gross negligencemanslaughter – by servants of the State. A third is that of plain negligence by servants of the State, leading to a death or allowing it to happen. The duty is in every instance fashioned to support and make good the substantive Article 2 rights.

    A credible accusation of murder or manslaughter by State agents will call for an investigation of the utmost rigour, conducted independently for all to see. The procedural obligation promotes these interlocking aims: to minimise the risk of future like deaths; to give the beginnings of justice to the bereaved; to assuage the anxieties of the public. What is required is a flexible approach, responsive to the dictates of the facts case by case.

  • Sudhanshu Garg v R
    • Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
    • 30 Noviembre 2012

    We were told, and we believe it to be correct, that this will be the first occasion since the Criminal Justice Act 2003 came into force on which this court has considered an appeal against sentence in the context of gross medical negligence. Our decision will no doubt be considered by other sentencing courts, but beyond broad general observations, this is not a guideline decision which purports to encompass the full ambit of sentencing in cases of manslaughter by gross medical negligence.

  • R v Misra (Amit)
    • Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
    • 08 Octubre 2004

    On proper analysis, therefore, the jury is not deciding whether the particular defendant ought to be convicted on some unprincipled basis. The question for the jury is not whether the defendant's negligence was gross, and whether, additionally, it was a crime, but whether his behaviour was grossly negligent and consequently criminal. This is not a question of law, but one of fact, for decision in the individual case.

See all results
Legislation
See all results
Books & Journal Articles
See all results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT