Chapter 8 Interactive key cases

In cases of manslaughter by criminal negligence involving a breach of duty, the ordinary principles of the law of negligence applied to ascertain whether D had been in breach of a duty of care towards V, whether it caused the death of V, and if so, whether it should be characterized as gross negligence and therefore a crime. Having regard to the risk of death involved, was D’s conduct so bad in all the circumstances as to amount to a criminal act or omission?

The Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal. The test for dangerous is that the unlawful act must be such that all sober and reasonable people would inevitably recognize it as an act which must subject the other person to at least the risk of some (physical) harm resulting therefrom, albeit not serious harm.

It is manslaughter if it is proved that D intentionally did an act which was unlawful and dangerous and that act inadvertently caused death. It was unnecessary to prove that D knew that the act was unlawful or dangerous or whether D recognized its danger.

On the facts, the jury had been entitled to find the defendants had assumed a duty to care for V and were obliged to summon help or care for V themselves when she became helplessly infirm.The breach of duty which had to be established was a reckless disregard of danger to her health and welfare by indifference to an obvious risk of injury to health or by actually foreseeing the risk and determining nevertheless to run it.

Adomako [1995] 1 AC 171

Church [1966] 1 QB 59

DPP v Newbury and Jones [1977] AC 500

Stone and Dobinson [1977] QB 354