Right I can guarentee you everything I say will be correct, some of the above certainly isn't so if i contradict any of it..listen to me.
The reason you can't find much on reckless manslaughter is because there isn't much Lidar is a case about reckless manslaughter, Adomako is more GN manslaughter.
Recklessness is subjective. Gross negligence is easier for a prosecution to prove than recklessness, this is because recklessness requires subjective foresight of risk, and gross negligence requires an obvious risk. Prosecution will tend to go for gross negligence, as this is far easier to convict on, recklessness and gross negligence are not separate categories.
Lidar (2000) 4 Archbold News – After a fight victim was hanging on to the defendant’s car, defendant drove off and victim died. Prosecution had to prove Lidar foresaw a serious risk of victim being killed or seriously injured, however had they have just called it gross negligence this would of been unnecessary, the reason this is the only negligence case you can find is because few prosecutors are stupid enough to seek a conviction for it.