Gross negligence manslaughter: the risk must be of death, not serious injury (R v Rose)
Graham Hughes, a site supervisor for a scaffolding firm in Milton Keynes, fails to make sure that a guard rail on a high platform is secured. A labourer falls from the platform and dies. Graham is tried for gross negligence manslaughter. The judge directs the jury that they may convict if they are sure that Graham owed the labourer a duty of care, that he breached it, that the breach caused the death, that a reasonably prudent person in his position would have foreseen a serious and obvious risk of serious injury, and that his negligence was so bad as to be criminal.
Which of the following best describes whether the judge's direction was correct?
Choose one answer to see the reasoning.
Worked answer
Correct answer B: It was wrong, because the jury must be sure a reasonably prudent person would have foreseen a serious and obvious risk of death, not merely serious injury.
THE RULE TO REMEMBER
For gross negligence manslaughter, a reasonably prudent person must have been able to foresee a serious and obvious risk of death, not just serious injury, from the breach of duty.
Gross negligence manslaughter: the risk must be of death, not serious injury (R v Rose)
Gross negligence manslaughter requires proof that the defendant owed the deceased a duty of care, breached it, and caused the death, and that the breach was so bad as to be criminal (R v Adomako [1995] 1 AC 171). The Court of Appeal in R v Rose [2017] EWCA Crim 1168, applying R v Rudling [2016] EWCA Crim 741, confirmed that it must also be reasonably foreseeable that the breach gave rise to a serious and obvious risk of death. A risk of injury, even serious injury, is not enough. The test is objective, judged by what a reasonably prudent person in the defendant's position would have foreseen on the knowledge available at the time of the breach. The judge's direction referred only to serious injury, so it set the threshold too low and was a misdirection.
Why A is wrong: Rose and the cases it applies require a serious and obvious risk of death, not of serious injury.
Why C is wrong: The foreseeability test is objective; the defendant's own foresight is not required.
Why D is wrong: An unlawful act is required for unlawful act manslaughter, not for gross negligence manslaughter.
Why E is wrong: A serious and obvious risk of death is a separate element that must be proved alongside grossness.
A little more practice done.
Related questions
Unlawful act manslaughter: the objective dangerousness test (R v Church)
Which of the following best describes Leon's liability for unlawful act manslaughter?
Oblique intention and the virtual certainty direction (R v Woollin)
Which of the following is the correct direction the judge should have given on intention?
Transferred malice where the blow strikes an unintended victim
Which of the following best describes Ryan's liability for Leah's death?
A GOOD HABIT, DELIVERED
Tomorrow's question.
In your inbox.
One free question a day, with the answer and reasoning.
No course pitches. Just your daily practice.