Gross Negligence Manslaughter

This assignment will evaluate murder, Homicide and will focus specifically on gross negligence manslaughter and diminished responsibility. It will explain the key rules and cases that are relevant to this aspect of criminal law. It will explain some of the rules using relevant statutes and/or case law and will show how the courts apply the rules of an area of criminal law in order to find a defendant guilty of an offence. This will be followed by an analysis of a relevant case and the law and statutes that are applicable. This leads the assignment towards a description of defences a defendant could use when accused of a gross negligence manslaughter. The final part of the assignment will be orientated towards changes made in the law over

recent years and an evaluation of the advantages and disadvantages of this area of law followed by some suggestions for law reforming in this area of the law.
The act of murder is essentially the act of intentionally taking another human being’s life. The law defines this as “the unlawful killing of a human being in the Queen’s peace, with malice afterthought”
The actus reus of the murder involves the unlawful killing of a human being during the Queen’s peace. The mens rea of murder is malice afterthought that is generally understood as the intention to cause grievous bodily harm or to kill. These actus reus and mens rea are used when classifying if the act is murder or manslaughter. The combination of both the mens rea and the actus reus when combined would class the homicide as a murder because they are both the actions of the murder combined with the initial intention to cause harm to the victim.
(Finch, E)
The actus reus is the action of unlawfully killing someone. Unlawful killing can occur with an act of omission.Because of this all unlawful killings are crimes and there are a variety of omissions that can be used as defences in court. When someone does not do something and it results in the loss of a life this is called the Act of omission. The act of omission refers to when an individual fail or omit to do something that results in death. There are a total of six ways that this can occur; Statutory duty, Contractual duty, Duty by relationship , duty taken voluntarily , Duty by position and Duty by own actions and chain of events caused. ( Finch, E)
Gross negligence manslaughter is when a person or persons dies as a direct result of the negligence of another party, and the extent of the degree of negligence by the defendant is serious enough to make the defendant criminally liable for the death.
In the case of R v Evans [2009] The defendant and her mother both convicted of gross negligence manslaughter on the grounds of not seeking help for a suspected overdose of heroin with a family member. All three of the family members had a history of heroin addiction and abuse. The defendant purchased some heroin and supplied it to her sister Carly who went on to inject herself. Carly displayed symptoms that resembled an overdose however the mother did not call for medical assistance and this resulted in the death of Carly. The defendant appealed the conviction for gross negligence manslaughter claiming it was an extension of principle relating to duty of care.
The appeal was denied on grounds that the initial supplying of heroin to the victim was responsible for creating a dangerous situation and was responsible for failing to take the appropriate actions and did not call for medical attention.
Because the defendant had made themselves criminally liable for their negligence and had contributed to make an unsafe environment potentially life threatening they were held responsible for gross negligence manslaughter.

If the defendant did not take matters in to their own hands the outcome could have been different.

(E-lawresources.co.uk )

Another example of gross negligence manslaughter and breach of duty of care is the R v Adomako trial (1995)

In this case the defendant was an anaesthetist in charge of a patient during an operation on the patient’s eye. Through the course of the operation the patient’s oxygen supply pipe became visibly disconnected and the patient subsequently died. The defendant failed to notice that the oxygen tube had become disconnected and did not respond to the patient’s distress.

The defendant was charged on breach of care and gross misconduct resulting in gross negligence manslaughter due to not acting appropriately in the situation or calling for additional help and support.

(E-lawresources.co.uk )

In both of these examples the defendants have breached a duty of care to their victims and it has resolved in death, with the Adamako case there where specific circumstances in

effect,
The owed duty of care to the victim, the defendant had a breach of duty and it was the breach of duty that was responsible for the death. Because the defendants conduct was so poor or unprofessional the jury categorised it as a criminal act.
This type of homicide would be classified as manslaughter in both cases because of the act of ommision and the failure to provide appropriate medical support, the defendant Adamako could have used a defence such as it was out of his contractual duty of care and his attempt to reconnect the pipe was an omission and was a duty of care responsibility.
(Bitsoflaw.org)
This is because duty of care is defined by civil law as “.. You must take care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour... “
And the defendants defence could be solely on the attempted preservation of human life.

A defence that could had been used in the R v Evans 2009 trial was diminished responsibility. This defence could have been used because the defendant had a notable history of heroin addiction. This could justify the abnormality to the actions the defendant took when making the decision not to call for medical assistance. Because the death was drug related the defendant may not have been able to form a ration judgement due to impairment caused by the drugs.
(Bitsoflaw.org)
Diminished responsibility only exists as a defence to murder and this defence is usually used to decrease the sentence from a murder charge to a manslaughter charge. Diminished responsibility is section 2 of the Homicide act 1957. It requires three elements to be recognised with is defendant for it to be accepted as a valid plea. Abnormality of the mind, the abnormality must be caused by apparent brain conditions such as injury, disease or inherent cause. The abnormality must substantially impact on the defendant’s mental responsibility.
The case of R v. Byrne defined abnormality of the mind as” a state of mind so different from that of the ordinary human being that the reasonable man would term it abnormal.”
Many circumstances have been found by the courts to result in an abnormality of the mind , and therefore suitable for a plea of diminished responsibility, including battered wives syndrome (R v. Ahluwalia) ,extreme jealousy (R v. Miller), depression (R v. Gittens) and PMT (R v. Smith).
(Finch, E)

This poses a number of issues when accepting this plea. This has caused there to be a number of changes in the law over recent years regarding diminished responsibility such as the rephrasing of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009.
In this act there have been attempts made to clarify the terminology that has been left open to interpretation by juries and court rooms. The first amendment was removing “abnormality of mind” and replacing it with “abnormality of mental functioning”. The second part that has been changed from “arose from causes” and has been changed to “arose from a recognised medical condition” The reason why these laws have been rephrased is because they were largely criticised for their flexibility and being left open to interpretation.
The advantages of allowing diminished responsibility as a defence for murder are that individuals can be relieved of a murder charge and given lighter sentences such as community service and unspent convictions if the court sees it applicable.

This leniency is in favour defendants who have helped people with assisted suicide or euthanasia and it is at the courts mercy the outcome for their actions.

( Mason, J., Laurie, G. )

Another key strength is that with updating in terminology in the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 it states there must be a long term disorder and this has to be documented so this eliminates intoxication as a defence without their being medical history of problematic episodes.

The disadvantages of allowing diminished responsibility as a defence used to reduce a murder charge is that courts regularly take this defence and are willing to do so in select circumstances. This is based on the evidence provided to the court, however this leaves the burden of proof with the defendant and depending on the circumstances surrounding the act of homicide could significantly impact if the defendant is charged with murder or manslaughter. A further weakness with this part of law is that mentally abnormal is required part of the defence when the defendant has been in abusive relationship, this redirects action based on the state of mind of the defendant not the abuse that could have caused the

homicide.

In the 2006 the Law Commission suggested a three-tier classification of homicide offences. First degree murder that receives mandatory life sentence Second degree murder with a discretionary life sentence and manslaughter with a discretionary life sentence.
In the 2005 consultation paper, the Law Commission suggested that first degree murder should be entirely to the intentional act of killing. However in 2006 the report had been extended to killing with intent to cause serious injury and awareness to a risk of causing death.
(Justice,2017)

The suggested reforms have a great deal of potential because the three-tier classification system of homicide is a lot more clear for the jury to understand and for the defendant to be able to provide the appropriate defence however with the extension of intent to cause serious injury and awareness to a risk of death being additionally added this may cause problems in court system because this is open to interpretation to a large extent.