Crime XXXXXXXIV - Gross Negligence Manslaughter VI
DPP
v Rowley (2003) further clarifies the law on convicting for gross negligence
manslaughter in the absence of subjective recklessness.
In
DPP v Rowley (2003) the victim was suffering from quadriplegia, microcephaly
and epilepsy and was in residential care. He was left unattended in a bath and
drowned as a result. The CPS decided not to prosecute and his mother brought an
action challenging the decision of the Crown Prosecution Services.
In
the absence of subjective recklessness, it was held that once the three elements
of negligence were satisfied i.e. duty, breach and causation and it could be
established that the defendant’s conduct was so bad that a crime could be
inferred, there is a fifth element that also needs to be satisfied.
In
order to convict the jury must be able to ascertain or discern an element of
badness or criminality for example as in R v Adomako (1994) where the
defendant had failed to avert an obvious and serious risk.
If
the defendant in the case had been paying attention the defendant would have
noticed that the pipes had become disconnected and would have been able to
prevent the death.
The
conduct of the defendant or the omission must be so bad that it is obvious to
the reasonable man that the conduct was criminal and if the CPS fails to find
that element of badness or criminality than it can refuse to prosecute.
The
conduct must be so bad that it is not sufficient that a mere fine is imposed or
the victim is compensated but calls for criminal punishment i.e. it amounts to
a crime against the state.
The
mother’s appeal against the decision of the CPS not to prosecute was
unsuccessful.
Copyright
© 2019 by Dyarne Ward
Comments
Post a Comment