lostthenfound
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#1
Hi,
In gross negligence manslaughter, the test is that the breach must have 'caused death'. Does this mean that in my essay i need to go into causation? If so, would it be the causation from negligence (ie. Barnett v Chelsea for but for test etc) or would it be the criminal law causation (ie R v White for but for, culpable act etc).
Then in constructive manslaughter the unlawful act must 'result in the death'. Once again, would I need to go into causation?
Any help would be very much appreciated!
Thanks
0
reply
Lord_E
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#2
Report 4 years ago
#2
Do you not use Pagett for the but for? Yes you do need to do causation.
0
reply
lukeluvsfunk
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#3
Report 4 years ago
#3
(Original post by lostthenfound)
Hi,
In gross negligence manslaughter, the test is that the breach must have 'caused death'. Does this mean that in my essay i need to go into causation? If so, would it be the causation from negligence (ie. Barnett v Chelsea for but for test etc) or would it be the criminal law causation (ie R v White for but for, culpable act etc).
Then in constructive manslaughter the unlawful act must 'result in the death'. Once again, would I need to go into causation?
Any help would be very much appreciated!
Thanks
What's the question? - would be good if you copied it here?
0
reply
lukeluvsfunk
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#4
Report 4 years ago
#4
If it's part of a problem/scenario question, I'd say yes, in summary, causation should be raised, discussed and applied. If an essay discussion = depends on the terms of the question.
0
reply
lukeluvsfunk
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#5
Report 4 years ago
#5
(Original post by lostthenfound)
Hi,
In gross negligence manslaughter, the test is that the breach must have 'caused death'. Does this mean that in my essay i need to go into causation? If so, would it be the causation from negligence (ie. Barnett v Chelsea for but for test etc) or would it be the criminal law causation (ie R v White for but for, culpable act etc).
Then in constructive manslaughter the unlawful act must 'result in the death'. Once again, would I need to go into causation?
Any help would be very much appreciated!
Thanks
Unlawful Act Manslaughter = normal principles of causation in FACT, and LAW, apply.

Gross Negligence Manslaughter = not so clear, but Lord McKay in Adomako was keen to say that 'the ordinary rules of negligence' apply, presumably meaning causation in law and fact also.

Bear in mind that the basic rules of causation in both criminal, and civil law, are virtually identical, so no need to fret about it so long as you expound, and apply, the correct logic and arguments.

Remember of course also not to get causation on the one hand, and the test for breach of duty on the other, are separate topics/issues!!!...but whilst we're on the subject - breach in GNM is the civil standard viz 'reasonably competent' so yes, Bolam test as modified by the evidential proviso in Bolithio, but also note that if D is a corporation = there is more specific law e.g. requirements of senior management and the way activities are managed or organised and 'gross breach' under s.2(4)(b).
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How are you feeling ahead of results day?

Very Confident (42)
8.27%
Confident (66)
12.99%
Indifferent (73)
14.37%
Unsure (126)
24.8%
Worried (201)
39.57%

Watched Threads

View All