Four people died after paddleboarding in “extremely hazardous conditions” on a river in Wales in October 2021.
What do you need to know about this offence?
Gross negligence manslaughter is one of the most serious offences under UK criminal law, yet it often sparks confusion due to its complex nature. It sits within the broader category of involuntary manslaughter, which covers cases where a person causes the death of another without intending to kill or cause grievous bodily harm.
What is Gross Negligence Manslaughter?
Gross negligence manslaughter occurs when a person breaches a duty of care they owe to another, and that breach results in death. Crucially, the negligence must be so severe that it can be characterised as “gross” – meaning criminal in nature, rather than merely civil.
Unlike unlawful act manslaughter (which involves a criminal act leading to death), gross negligence manslaughter typically arises in situations where the defendant’s actions, or more commonly, inactions, are not inherently criminal but nonetheless cause death.
It is often seen in professional or workplace contexts, such as healthcare, construction or transportation – where people hold responsibilities that, if carried out negligently, can have fatal consequences.
The Legal Test: Adomako and the Four-Part Framework
The leading case on gross negligence manslaughter is R v Adomako [1994] 3 All ER 79. In this case, an anaesthetist failed to notice that a patient’s oxygen tube had become disconnected during surgery, leading to the patient’s death. The House of Lords established a four-part test that courts still use today:
- Duty of Care – Did the defendant owe a duty of care to the victim?
- Breach of Duty – Was that duty breached?
- Causation – Did the breach cause the death of the victim?
- Grossness – Was the breach so gross as to justify a criminal conviction?
Let’s look at each part more closely:
- Duty of Care
This is often the easiest element to establish. If the defendant was in a relationship with the deceased that would be recognised by civil law as giving rise to a duty – for example, a doctor-patient, employer-employee, or even parent-child relationship – then a duty of care exists.
However, the courts have also recognised more nuanced relationships. For example, a person who voluntarily assumes responsibility for another’s welfare may be held to owe a duty.
- Breach of Duty
The court considers whether the defendant failed to act as a reasonable person would under similar circumstances. This is assessed objectively. Professional standards, particularly in medical or technical fields, may be considered to determine whether the defendant’s conduct fell below what was reasonably expected.
- Causation
There must be a clear link between the defendant’s negligence and the death of the victim. Courts use the familiar “but for” test – but for the defendant’s breach, would the death have occurred? If the answer is no, causation is typically satisfied.
- Grossness
This is arguably the most difficult part of the test. The conduct must be “so bad in all the circumstances” that it amounts to a crime. This is not a question of simple carelessness or even incompetence; the breach must be a flagrant disregard for the life and safety of others.
Key Case Law
Apart from Adomako, several other cases help define the boundaries of gross negligence manslaughter:
- R v Stone and Dobinson [1977] QB 354: The defendants, who had taken in Stone’s sister and agreed to care for her, failed to obtain medical help as her health deteriorated. Their inaction, amid appalling living conditions, led to her death. The court found they owed her a duty of care and breached it grossly.
- R v Rose [2017] EWCA Crim 1168: An optometrist was convicted after failing to detect a serious eye condition in a child who later died. The Court of Appeal quashed the conviction, stating that the risk of death must be foreseeable at the time of the breach, and not only in hindsight.
These cases illustrate how gross negligence can arise through acts or omissions, and how foreseeability and context influence whether the negligence is deemed “gross”.
Application in Corporate and Workplace Settings
Gross negligence manslaughter is particularly relevant in cases involving corporate responsibility. For instance, if a worker dies due to unsafe working conditions caused by a senior manager’s neglect, that manager may be personally liable.
However, prosecuting organisations as legal persons has traditionally been challenging. This led to the introduction of the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007, which allows companies to be prosecuted for gross breaches of duty leading to death.
Penalties and Sentencing
The offence carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment, but sentences vary widely depending on the facts of the case. Courts consider the level of culpability, the foreseeability of harm and the degree to which the defendant fell below acceptable standards.
Recent sentencing guidelines also consider aggravating and mitigating factors, such as previous safety violations or expressions of remorse. Credit will be given for a timely guilty plea.
Challenges and Controversies
The subjective element – whether conduct is “gross” – introduces a degree of uncertainty. Critics argue that it gives too much discretion to juries, potentially leading to inconsistent verdicts.
There’s also debate around the threshold for criminal liability in professional settings. Some believe that criminalising tragic mistakes may discourage transparency or learning from errors, especially in healthcare.
How can we help?
As can be seen, gross negligence manslaughter is a very serious matter, and the surest way to avoid legal action is to implement proactive safety measures to keep everyone safe, both employees and members of the public. Contact our team of legal experts to learn more about building a resilient organisation and what to do if you find yourself facing an investigation.