Facts: The appellant was an anaesthetist in charge of a patient during an eye operation. During the operation an oxygen pipe became disconnected and the patient died. The appellant failed to notice or respond to obvious signs of disconnection. The jury convicted him of gross negligence manslaughter.

Held: His conviction for gross negligence manslaughter was upheld by the House of Lords.

⇒ Lord MacKay LC: “…gross negligence…depends…on the seriousness of the breach of the duty committed by the defendant in all the circumstances in which he was placed when it occurred and whether, having regard to the risk of death involved, the conduct of the defendant was so bad in all the circumstances as to amount in the jury’s judgment to a criminal act or omission”.

⇒ See the topic notes on gross negligence manslaughter here.

Facts: The defendant chased his wife out of the house shouting threats at her. She collapsed and died. He did not physically touch her. She was suffering from a rare thyroid condition which could lead to death where physical exertion was accompanied by fright and panic. Both the defendant and his wife were unaware she had this condition.

Held: The defendant was liable for constructive manslaughter as his unlawful act (assault) caused death. The egg shell (thin) skull rule applied (see notes on this here). He was therefore fully liable despite the fact an ordinary person of reasonable fortitude would not have died in such circumstances.

⇒ See the topic notes on gross negligence manslaughter here.

Facts: A Leukaemia patient came into hospital and required a lumber puncture. Hospital regulations said that one doctor by themselves could not do that; there must be a supervising doctor. However, on this occasion, there was no consultant available; two junior doctors were the only people available, even though they had no experience of this. The junior doctors said they could not do this as the were not trained, but were told they had to because they were the only available people. Everything went wrong and the patient suffered a slow agonising death. Each were charged with gross negligence manslaughter and they appealed.

Held: The Court of Appeal said the jury is entitled to consider the circumstances in which the defendant found himself in; therefore, if the jury think the circumstances are relevant they may acquit the defendant. Here, Prentice did get his conviction quashed. Note: the Corporate Manslaughter Act now allows for corporations/organisation to be convicted of gross negligence but serious management failure must be shown.

⇒ See the topic notes on gross negligence manslaughter here.

Facts: Ted Stone was 67, totally blind, partially deaf had no appreciable sense of smell and was of low intelligence. He lived with his housekeeper and mistress of 8 years, Gwendolyn Dobinson aged 43 who was described as ineffectual and inadequate. Ted's sister Fanny came to live with them. She had previously lived with another sister but had fallen out with her. She had mental problems and was suffering from anorexia nervosa. Ted and Gwendolyn took her in and agreed to look after her. However, Fanny's condition deteriorated and she was found dead in her bed in appalling conditions.

Held: Stone and Dobinson were found liable for her death (i.e. they were convicted of gross negligence manslaughter) as they had assumed a responsibility to her by taking her in. They failed to look after her and ensure she got the medical help she needed

⇒ See the topic notes on gross negligence manslaughter here.