⇒ For gross negligence manslaughter it must be shown that:

• (1) The defendant owed the victim a duty of care;
• (2) The defendant breached that duty of care;
• (3) The breach of the duty caused the death of the victim;
• (4) The breach was so gross as to justify a criminal conviction.

⇒ The leading case on gross negligence manslaughter is the House of Lords’ decision in R v Adomako [1995].

⇒ Also see the cases of R v Stone and Dobinson [1977] and R v Prentice [1993].

⇒ The definition of 'duty of care' is the same as it is given in the tort of negligence (R v Wacker [2003]) i.e. you owe a duty of care to anyone who may be foreseeably harmed by your action. For example, a doctor owes a duty of care to his/her patients as seen in R v Adomako [1995].

⇒ It is for the judge, NOT the jury, to decide if there is a duty of care (R v Evans [2009]).

⇒ It must be shown that the defendant breached his/her duty of care to the victim.

⇒ In deciding this, the jury must consider whether the defendant's actions were less than what a reasonable person would be expected to do.

⇒ If, for example, the defendant is a specialist at something then they must act as the reasonable specialist would e.g. in R v Adomako [1995] the defendant (Adomako) must act no less than what is expected of a reasonable anaesthetist.

⇒ It must be shown that the defendant’s breach of the duty caused the victim’s death. See, for example, R v Hayward (1908).

⇒ Lord Mackay told the jury (in R v Adomako [1995]) to consider whether the defendant's actions were so bad they should result in a criminal conviction.

⇒ In Attorney General’s Reference (No. 2 1999) it was stated that the defendant does not need to have foreseen death to be convicted of gross negligence manslaughter. Nevertheless, where there is a grossly negligent act, death is often foreseeable anyway.