the Mens Rea of Gross Negligence Manslaughter

I am struggling a bit with this - Is the Mens Rea of Gross Negligence Manslaughter simply Gross Negligence. Does Mens Rea always have to be present in this kind of offence because I have a feeling it doesn't have to be ? Also I understand that this type of offence can be confusing to the Courts but what is it exactly that causes the confusion ? Is it that in many cases the Judge has to give too much direction to the Jury??

Also are there any specific books that would help with this topic?

Any help would be most appreciated

Yes, it is simply Gross Negligence. So the Adomako test is the current test.

So just look at the test - "The conduct of the defendant was so bad in all the circumstances as to amount in their judgement to a criminal act or omission."

The main problem with the test is the fact you have to remember the Jury have no knowledge of the law, and the test is of circular logic.

So basically, the test is saying if the act is bad enough to be criminal, it will be criminal. The problem for the Jury here is the massive discretion it gives them. Since the judge can give them the test and then outline the factors they should take into account - but the main decision is up to them.

The problem with large amounts of discretion is that there is the threat of inconsistent decision, as each Jury is different. What conduct is 'so bad' to one Jury may be decided entirely differently by another. The inconsistent nature of this process can be contrasted with the concept of the Rule of Law, the way decisions should be certain and ascertainable. Specifically when you're talking about imprisoning someone for a criminal offence, effectively removing their liberty.

Thank you for your speedy response and the way in which you explained it means I understand it now

No problem!

If you need any more clarification let me know.

Just to add, if you're writing an essay it's good to mention previous tests. Andrews, Bateman, Seymour ect

Sorry I didn't see your reply before I posted. Any suggestions?

Thanks in advance

That's the Attorney General Ref case right?

That is in regards to the defendant being aware of the risk of death.

Basically there was dispute by some about the ambiguity of Adomako - suggesting that the defendant had to be aware of the risk of death.

This case showed that the defendant doesn't need to see a risk of death or even injury. (Think about the context of the case, the defendant was a company, it's unlikely the highest director of the company would have any foresight of the death)

This said, although the case makes it possible to convict without any foresight of death, a Jury would generally be incredibly reluctant to convict unless similar circumstances arose.

So yeah, in this case you could argue there was no mens rea needed, but generally the Adomako test will apply and there will need to be shown the defendant saw a risk of death.

And if you were arguing in a problem scenario you would only mention this briefly - unless the particular scenario was similar to the AGREF case. Or in an essay it'd be a good point of criticism.

what degree of mens rea is needed for gross negligence manslaughter to be shown?