Gross Negligence Manslaughter

“In our judgement the law is clear. The ingredients of the offence have been clearly defined, and the principles decided in the House of Lords in Adomako . They involve no uncertainty. The hypothetical citizen, seeking to know his his position, would be advised that, assuming he owed a duty of care to the deceased which he had negligently broken, and that death resulted, he would be liable to conviction for manslaughter if, on the available evidence, the jury was satisfied that his negligence was gross."

Per Judge LJ R. v. Misra and Srivastava [2004] EWCA Crim 2375 para 64 (in the Court of Appeal Criminal Division)

In light of the above comments, consider the elements of the offence of Gross Negligence Manslaughter and, referring to relevant authority, critically assess whether the current law in this area is certain and satisfactory.

This paper is going to consider elements of the offence of Gross Negligence Manslaughter and will assess, whether the current law in this area is certain and satisfactory. In order to discuss whether the law governing Gross Negligence Manslaughter is in a certain and satisfactory state, I need to first consider its elements and then look at the current law, outlining the problems, and lastly discuss the proposed changes. Gross negligence manslaughter is a form of involuntary manslaughter where the defendant is apparently acting lawfully. Involuntary manslaughter may arise where the defendant has caused death but neither intended to cause it nor intended to cause serious bodily harm and therefore lacks the mens rea of murder. Whereas constructive manslaughter happens where the defendant commits an unlawful act which results in death, gross negligence manslaughter does not depend on representing an unlawful act has been committed. It can be said to apply where the defendant commits a lawful act in such a way as to render the actions criminal. Gross negligence manslaughter also differs from constructive manslaughter in that it