Gross
negligence manslaughter in Guernsey law
Chris Dunford and Sarah
Watson
This
article analyses the development of the law of homicide in Guernsey, with
particular focus on the offence of gross negligence manslaughter. This follows
a recent trial in the Royal Court of Guernsey where the existence of this
offence was questioned by the defence, then formally recognised and the
elements of proof clearly defined.
Introduction
1 On 27 September 2019, after a four week
trial in the Royal Court of Guernsey, two former mental health nurses were
acquitted of a single joint count alleging manslaughter by gross negligence.
2 As the trial judge had commented in
summing up the case, the offence had not been prosecuted in living memory. Indeed,
the defence had questioned from an early stage of the investigation whether the
offence was known to Guernsey law.
3 As might be expected, and before any
decision was taken to prosecute, the criminal prosecution team at the Law
Officers in Guernsey, of which the authors are members, undertook a full
analysis of the history of the offence of manslaughter generally, and
involuntary manslaughter, incorporating gross negligence man-slaughter, in
particular.
4 This article seeks to provide an overview
of that research in order to assist practitioners who may encounter this
complex area in the future. This research was provided to the defence during
the case, leading to a concession that the offence was known to Guernsey law. Whilst
this obviated the need for legal argument on this point, there were a number of
other hearings regarding the elements of the offence. The judgments given by Finch,
Judge of the Royal Court, who presided as trial judge throughout the case, in
two such hearings, contain an important statement of the Guernsey law in this
complex area and will be summarised in this article.
The
facts
5 At about 02:42 on 12 October 2017 a 22-year-old
woman was discovered dead in her room, having applied a ligature to her neck
whilst a voluntary inpatient on the adult mental health inpatient ward at the Oberlands Centre in Guernsey. At the time she was in the
care of the two defendants who were nurses on shift on the ward, and it was
accepted at trial that they had not performed observation checks on her for
around 100 minutes. It was during that time that the ligature had been applied
by the deceased. These checks were supposed to have been performed every 15
minutes. The prosecution case was put on the basis that the two accused had
wilfully neglected their duty to perform these checks and so had caused the
death. Amongst other things, this was based on the accepted evidence that both
defendants knew at the time that the checks had to be done, and that neither
accused had been busy during this time; rather the evidence showed them using
their mobile phones, listening to music and talking to each other. Checks had
also been missed for nine other patients. The defence case centred on a
suggested inability of the prosecution to show a number of key elements of the
offence, including causation. However before expanding on these aspects, it is
important to set out the history of involuntary manslaughter in Guernsey law,
and its relationship to the historical development of the law in England and
Wales.
The historical position—Guernsey law
6 Although unlawful act manslaughter cases
have been prosecuted in recent times in Guernsey, there was no recent evidence
that the offence of gross negligence manslaughter had ever been prosecuted. As
such, a “back to basics” approach was required in order to
establish the current legal positon, and the starting point was to look back at
manslaughter and homicide generally. It was hoped that from there an argument
supporting the existence of the offence could be developed. The States
Archivist, Dr Darryl Ogier, was approached for assistance in researching the
historical basis for this offence in Guernsey law. His research traced the
development of homicide in Guernsey law and it is important to summarise the
results of that research.
7 Whilst it
might be assumed that manslaughter has been part of Guernsey law for many
hundreds of years it was important to find the evidence to support that
assumption. A Privy Council order, issued to the Channel Islands on 30 November
1699, directed that—
“His Majesty having since been informed that
there was some mistake in the representation of that matter, and that,
according to the law and ancient usage of that island, the Bailiff and Jurats, upon the trial of any person accused of the death
of another, unless they find the offence to be murder, do not proceed to
inflict capital punishment for the same, but do inflict lesser punishments,
according to the nature and circumstances of the offence: His Majesty hath
therefore thought fit in Council to order, that the said order of 23rd of June,
1698, for stay of execution in cases of murder, manslaughter and chance medley,
until his Majesty’s pleasure should be known, shall be restrained to
cases of murder, and other cases where capital punishment is inflicted, where
the said court shall think the offender fit object of His Majesty’s
mercy, and no other.”[1]
This
was considered important as it established that the Royal Court could reach a
verdict other than murder in homicide cases.
8 The
case of John McDugal was also traced—he was
actioned by Law Officers—
“contre lui a se voir ajuger
aux peine et punitions imposés par les loix
pour avoir . . . depourvu de la crainte de
Dieu felonieusement tué occis et meutri Roze Sargison sa femme . . .”
[“Against
him to see him sentenced to the penalty and punishments imposed by the laws for
having . . . without the fear of God feloniously killed, slain and
murdered Roze Sargison his
wife . . .”]
He was
sentenced to be burned in the left hand by the executioner at the cage,
“après preuve d’avoir le dit McDugal commis
l’homicide appelé en Angleterre Manslaughter.”[2]
[“after
proof that the said McDugal committed the homicide in
England called ‘manslaughter.’”]
9 Dr
Ogier established that the words “felonieusement tué occis et meutri” used in McDugal’s case represented the standard formula
in prosecutions for unlawful deaths whether alleged to be murder or not.[3]
10 It
is also notable that as early as 1787 the Royal Court was looking to English
law to label the offence committed as manslaughter.
11 Finally, there
was the case of the Law Officers v Gibson
which resulted in acquittal. The brief facts found in a newspaper from the time
were:
“The said Gibson being at the time seated on the
front of a cart laden with sand and drawn by two horses, with his feet resting
on the shafts of the said cart, and having no reins in his hands, the wheels of
the said cart having gone over the body of the said George Henry Palmer,
causing contusions and wounds of which the said Palmer died on the evening of
the same day.”[5]
12 This was (or,
more accurately, would have been if the accused had been found guilty) of
course involuntary manslaughter meaning an unlawful killing without intent to
kill or cause grievous bodily harm, but with sufficient fault to justify
criminal liability. As will be explored, involuntary manslaughter was used in
England and Wales, before the introduction of the statutory offence of causing
death by dangerous driving, in prosecutions involving fatalities arising from
road traffic accidents. However, whilst it could be established that
involuntary manslaughter had been prosecuted in the past in Guernsey, it was
considered further work was still needed to explore whether there were other
cases whose facts were more akin to gross negligence manslaughter prosecutions
seen in the modern day. Research was also required to see if there was any
reference to it in Guernsey statute.
Guernsey statute
13 Put simply, there is nothing to be found
in any legislation to assist with establishing gross negligence manslaughter as
an offence known to Guernsey law. This may be because the offence also has no
apparent statutory history in England and Wales.
14 The Homicide (Guernsey) Law 1965
contains no mention of manslaughter but deals primarily with the abolition of
the death penalty. The Criminal Jurisdiction (Guernsey) Law 1986 deals with the
matters set out in the title, but clearly acknowledges the overarching offence
of manslaughter as being known to Guernsey law. The Homicide and Suicide
(Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law 2006 deals with the defence of diminished
responsibility but had already been considered part of Guernsey law since the
decision in Law Officers v Harvey[6] (see
further below regarding this decision). Notably section 2(3) states—
“A person who but for this section would be
liable, whether as a principal or as an accessory, to be convicted of murder is
liable instead to be convicted of manslaughter.”
15 Section
5(2) also acknowledges the offence of manslaughter but this statute is clearly
dealing only with unlawful act manslaughter rather than involuntary
manslaughter.
Further legal research on Guernsey law
16 In the
absence of any statutory assistance recourse was had to Marshall’s 1975
work The Criminal Law of the Bailiwick of Guernsey. He
provides some useful analysis of manslaughter in the Bailiwick, most notably
for present purposes: “Manslaughter may be wilful manslaughter,
involuntary manslaughter or manslaughter due to gross negligence”.[7]
Although technically incorrect to separate out manslaughter by gross negligence
as separate from involuntary manslaughter, it being one of the two recognised
types of involuntary manslaughter (along with unlawful act manslaughter), the
identification of this specific offence was invaluable in the research being
undertaken at the time and helpfully Marshall then gives some substance to
these comments.
17 He goes on to
state that “Cases of manslaughter by the dangerous driving of a motor
vehicle are now dealt with under the law of 1957”.[8]
Although the full title of this legislation is not given this is clearly a
reference to the Vehicular Driving (Causing Death by Driving) Law 1957 which
followed the English approach to motor manslaughter. Of course not all those
offences which might formerly have been prosecuted as manslaughter would
automatically be capable of being prosecuted under the 1957 Law, or vice
versa, because the elements of the offences are different.
18 Marshall then
refers to two earlier cases involving deaths caused by vehicles, one of which
is Officiers de la Reine
contre Robert Gibson 1870 (which has already been
referred to above). As has been noted, this case was still a step away from
showing gross negligence manslaughter as an offence known to Guernsey law, but
the key information came from the next section—
“Manslaughter may be due to gross negligence or
dereliction of duty . . . Gross negligence is criminal negligence:
that is when an act which causes death which is not per se unlawful amounts to
manslaughter because of a grave or gross negligence in the manner in which it
was committed. The negligence must be of a very grave character: see Officiers de la Reine contre Maria Anne Patterson 1900 [a case of a midwife who
ignorantly, rashly and feloniously neglected to do that which was necessary for
the health of a patient who died of peritonitis after childbirth] and Officiers de la Reine contre Wilkinson 1895 [master of a vessel which caught fire
near Les Roches Douvres abandoned the vessel leaving
his passenger behind onboard].”[9]
19 Of these two
cases, Patterson, was considered to provide a solid basis to establish
the offence of gross negligence manslaughter. This was particularly important
because the offence appears, at least in part, to have been committed by an
omission. The report suggests that Patterson pulled too hard on the baby
causing the mother to have a rupture of the uterus from which she died but
there is reference to neglecting to do what was necessary for the health of the
patient. In the gross negligence case of R v Sellu,
the patient died of a perforated colon after knee surgery, and the prosecution
case was based on the standard of care provided over 24 hours, it being part of
the Crown’s case that the accused should have performed an operation to
repair the perforated colon earlier than he did. Ultimately, and for other
reasons, the appeal against conviction was successful in Sellu
but it was certainly a case with some common features to that of Patterson
in showing how such conduct (and neglect) could be considered to be gross
negligence manslaughter where death resulted. Whilst all gross negligence
manslaughter prosecutions must start by establishing a duty of care, and then a
breach of a duty of care, prosecuting cases involving omissions to act are
rare. It was also of note that the case involved failings by a medical
professional. Whilst it is not stated in the Greffe
records, the basis of criminal liability appears to have been the existence of
the duty of care owed by the midwife, and the grave breach of that duty through
(at least) a possible omission, this then having being considered to have
caused the death of the patient. By comparison, the prosecution case in 2019
was built around the fact that the two nurses owed a duty to their patient,
then that the agreed evidence showed the two nurses had failed to check on
their patient for over 100 minutes, a window in which the deceased was able to
apply a ligature that ultimately led to her death.
20 Due to the
apparent significance of the decision in Patterson further research was
conducted of the Greffe strongroom
records. The Greffe files contain the following entry
(at 577)—
“Patterson
ayant été appelé á la dite chambre comme sage femme
pour donner des soins á Melissa Marks femme du dit Thomas Le Marchant,
laquelle était dans les douleurs de l’enfantement, ignorament, témérairement, et félonieusement négligé de faire ce qui
était necessaire pour la santé
. . . [and later in the document at page
596] . . . Patterson condammée à
étre bannie hors de ce Bailliage pour subir la
servitude pénale pour trois ans sous la discipline prescrite par la
législation du Royaume Uni; et aux frais, après avoir entendu les
témoins desdits Officiers de la Reine.”
[“Patterson having been called to the said
bedroom as midwife to do her duty to Melissa Marks wife of the said Thomas Le
Marchant who was in the pangs of childbirth ignorantly temerariously and
feloniously neglecting to do that was necessary for [the mother’s health]
. . . Patterson condemned to be banished from this Bailiwick to
undergo penal servitude for three years under the chastisement prescribed by
the legislation of the United Kingdom and to costs after having heard the
witnesses of the said Crown Officers”.]
21 This excerpt
contains a number of important points. First, it clearly establishes the
negligent conduct was treated as a crime (a felony), as opposed to a civil
matter, and secondly it led to incarceration, which underpinned its status as a
crime.
22 Before
leaving Marshall’s work it is worth noting a final paragraph—
“Persons who are responsible for the health of
others such as physicians and surgeons and experts in other fields must use all
the care that is expected of their profession. Where a medical practitioner is
on trial for manslaughter for grave negligence the Jurats
must be satisfied that the negligence is great enough to attract criminal
liability.”[11]
23 This remains
a key component of the offence, as will later be examined. However, before
discussing the elements of the offence, it is important to explore the more
recent homicide prosecutions in Guernsey to see if this would yield any evidence
relating to the offence of gross negligence manslaughter.
Homicide prosecutions in Guernsey in the 20th
and 21st centuries
24 A number of 20th century examples of
murder being reduced to manslaughter were identified but still nothing akin to
gross negligence manslaughter. These included Tardif, Tiley and Le Prevost.
25 In the 21st century there have been a
number of prosecutions for homicide, some of which resulted in a plea to
manslaughter, or where manslaughter was the only charge brought:
• Harvey v Law
Officers—as
noted further below, English jurisprudence was followed regarding the law of
insanity whereby the court left open the option for the Jurats
to find the accused not guilty of murder, but guilty of manslaughter on the
grounds of diminished responsibility (although the accused was convicted after
trial of two counts of murder).
• Le Sauvage v Law Officers—although
the accused was charged with murder a plea was accepted to manslaughter on the
basis of diminished responsibility.
• Rouget v Law Officers—the
defendant was convicted of murder but it was accepted by the Royal Court (and
not challenged on appeal) that despite the absence of any statutory provision
the defence of provocation was available. As noted above the defence is now
part of Guernsey statute. Of course by acknowledging the existence of the
defence of provocation, unlawful act manslaughter was noted as a possible
verdict.
• Baker—this
was a “single blow” manslaughter case where the accused pleaded
guilty to this offence. There is no judgment available and the matter was not
subject to appeal but it is further evidence that manslaughter is an offence
well established in Guernsey law.
26 This research confirmed what had been
suspected—that there were no modern-day examples of gross negligence
manslaughter, and so little to guide the Royal Court in 2019 in identifying the
elements the prosecution had to establish in order to prove the offence. It was
at this stage that it became clear that other sources and authorities would
have to be consulted.
English law—the historical position
27 The
relationship between the law of Guernsey and the law of England and Wales is
stated in the seminal Guernsey Court of Appeal decision in Wicks v Law Officers:
“Guernsey is a separate jurisdiction and has its
own legal system. It is, therefore, free to set its own sentencing levels as
the Island’s courts think appropriate for Guernsey. Guernsey no more has
to follow sentencing practice in England than it has to follow sentencing
practice in Scotland, Northern Ireland, Jersey or, for that matter, France; it
can, of course, in exercise of its autonomy choose, but for the same reason of
autonomy cannot be compelled, to do so. In our judgment, no authority is
required to justify this elementary statement of the constitutional position
which has been regularly stated on previous occasions.”
28 It should
never be assumed that English law would be the correct reference point to
determine the extent of Guernsey criminal law, and it never has been considered
as such by the Royal Court despite, of course, being an invaluable and
persuasive source.
29 Although an
earlier example has already been given, the generally accepted starting point
for when it was beyond doubt that Guernsey criminal law followed English law is
the 1848 Commissioners’ Report. This document has long been a reference
point for criminal practitioners in the Bailiwick of Guernsey and contains the
following of interest:
“Question: In this Island, what is the
definition of murder?
Answer: The English authorities are cited in cases of
that kind.”[21]
30 Much of Guernsey’s criminal
statute law is now based on English law which strengthens the argument in
favour of consulting subsequent English jurisprudence. Indeed, whether
statutory or common law is under consideration it has, within the last 20
years, become very common to follow English case law and this can be traced
back for a number of years. On occasions this will also include following the
common law and perhaps one of most notable example of this was in Harvey[22] where Sir
de Vic Carey, Bailiff, ruled in favour of following English law in respect of
the test to be applied for determining insanity in Guernsey Law (taking
Guernsey law in a different direction to Jersey law at that time). The then
Bailiff stated:
“It appears that for some time prior to that
the criminal law had developed in an unstructured way and the need was to have
a clear criminal law with offences defined and categorized and the various
glosses on such offences developed over the centuries in the English courts
imported into Guernsey jurisprudence. Consequently, since 1848 one has
witnessed the development of common law offences on parallel lines to those
offences in England and also the development of local legislation dealing with
the more common offences of dishonesty and other offences such as criminal
damage that have been the creatures of statute mirroring English provisions.
Jersey law, I accept, has not always developed in a similar direction.”
31 As explained in Wicks,[24] this does not of course mean that there
should be any concession that English law has any binding precedent effect on
Guernsey law. A clear example of this is found in Law Officers v Bishop where Scots law was
favoured over English law, when considering the breadth of the offence of being
concerned in the supply of a controlled drug. Interestingly, English law later
caught up to fall in line with both Guernsey and Scots law[26].
32 Drawing this
all together it was clear that by this stage two solid conclusions had been
reached. First, that the prosecution of past cases identified by Marshall (and
confirmed by Greffe records) allayed any doubt on the
part of the prosecution team that gross negligence manslaughter was an offence
known to Guernsey law. Secondly, English law would be of great influence in
allowing the Royal Court to identify the elements of the offence as applicable
at the time of trial.
The historical
basis of gross negligence manslaughter in English law
33 The decision of the English Court of
Appeal in R v Bateman provides a useful overview of the offence as it was known at that
time, and cites earlier sources for the existence of the offence of
manslaughter (e.g. Hale’s Pleas of
the Crown). It appears to be an early (if not the earliest) analysis of the
elements that make up the offence, and has been cited in numerous decisions of
the English Court of Appeal.
34 Critically the court set the benchmark
for what degree of negligence had to be established stating—
“. . . in order to establish criminal
liability the facts must be such that, in the opinion of the jury, the
negligence went beyond a mere matter of compensation between subjects and
showed such disregard for the life and safety of others as to amount to a crime
against the State and conduct deserving of punishment.”[28]
This is now enshrined in element (5) of the offence in
Guernsey law, as will be set out shortly.
35 A further example is R v Andrews which assists in understanding
how the law developed. That was a case involving a road traffic fatality
(commonly known as motor manslaughter) and shows there are similarities in the
way English and Guernsey law developed in this regard, namely that cases that
would now be pursued as causing death by dangerous driving were originally
pursued as manslaughter cases. In that case the appellant was employed by the
Leeds Corporation Transport Dept and was directed to take a van to assist a
Corporation omnibus which had broken down. The appellant killed a pedestrian on
route whilst undertaking an overtaking manoeuvre at speed. In giving the
judgment of the Privy Council dismissing the appeal, Lord Atkin said—
“of all crimes manslaughter appears to afford
most difficulties of definition, for it concerns homicide in so many and
varying conditions. From the early days when any homicide involved penalty the
law has gradually evolved . . . until it recognizes murder on the one
hand, based mainly, though not exclusively, on the absence of intention to
kill, and manslaughter on the other hand, based mainly, though not exclusively,
on an absence of intention to kill but with the presence of an element of ‘unlawfulness’
which is the elusive factor. In the present case it is only necessary to consider
manslaughter from the point of view of an unintentional killing caused by
negligence, that is, the omission of a duty of care.”
36 This thus bears similarities to the case
of Gibson (see above) which could be
said to be a pre-motor vehicle example of motor manslaughter.
37 R
v Adomako remains the pivotal
decision covering the elements of the offence and has been frequently cited
since. The case was relied upon by Judge Finch in the Royal Court in
establishing the elements of the offence in Guernsey law. [32]
38 Before exploring further the elements of
the offence in current English law it is of note that there was a challenge to
the offence in Misra where it was argued that
it offended the against the principal of legal certainty inherent in art 7 of
the European Convention on Human Rights.[34] The Court
of Appeal rejected that argument and indicated the law was clearly defined as
stated in Adomako,[35]
which helps to explain why this remains a significant reference point for the
current state of the law, to which we will now turn.
Current
English law
39 A useful starting point is the 2018
article by Laird “The Evolution of Gross Negligence Manslaughter”,[36] as
this refers to many of the important cases in the last 20 or so years. The
article acknowledges the incremental development of the offence and the recent “significant
development” by the Court of Appeal which is described as having
“occurred solely with reference to healthcare professionals”.[37] The
article criticises this development of the law and certainly it has to be
acknowledged that there has in recent times been a glut of appeals, many of
which were successful, highlighting the difficulties that English judges are
having in grappling with the necessary directions to juries in summing up. It
is not within the scope of this article to rehearse all those decisions here,
as the law was eventually clearly stated by the Royal Court in Guernsey. However,
it is worth noting some of the concerns and providing references to those engaging
in further research.
40 Laird refers to the offence as being in
a state of flux and suggests that a statement of the law is needed from the
Supreme Court to clarify the present state of the law which has resulted from
its piecemeal development. It was also suggested the consequence of this was
that—
“doctors and other healthcare professionals are
at greater risk of committing gross negligence manslaughter than most other
members of society.”[38]
41 Another article of interest is Spencer’s
“Prosecuting Medical Professionals for Manslaughter”[39]
from 2019, which provides comment on element (v), that is, the assessment
of the degree of grossness of negligence noted above. Notably it acknowledges
that the key issue of whether the conduct is “truly exceptionally
bad” is left to the jury (or, in Guernsey, the Jurats).
42 A further article of note is “The
Duty of Care in Gross Negligence Manslaughter”[41] from
2007, which questions whether the duty of care that must be proven is truly
akin to the tortious duty of care in negligence.
43 “A Dangerous Situation: The Duty
of Care in Gross Negligence Manslaughter” by Storey[42] looks at
cases where a duty of care was imposed in cases beyond those involving medical
professionals.
44 In his 2018 article, “Gross
Negligence Manslaughter, Restaurant Owners and the Duty of Care” it is
Storey again[43] who
looks at the decision in R v Zaman, which was an important
case to which the Royal Court of Guernsey made reference in order to identify
the matters which have to be proved in establishing gross negligence
manslaughter. This involved the death of a customer with a peanut allergy who
had been served food containing peanuts. The article addresses a number of
interesting aspects of the offence, particularly the need for the prosecution
to prove both factual and legal causation, which will be addressed below.
45 There are two other articles[45] of
note, relating specifically to drugs cases which usually involve death
following the intravenous administration of heroin. It will now be considered
how all of this led to the formulation of the law in the recent Guernsey case
outlined at the opening of this article.
Jersey law
46 Although the law of our neighbouring jurisdiction did not figure in argument before
the Royal Court of Guernsey, it is interesting in retrospect to cast an eye
over the law of Jersey. The key case on gross negligence manslaughter is Att Gen v Hall.
The facts were, briefly, that the defendant, who had been drinking heavily over
a long lunch, got into his car to drive away. He reversed into another car
causing minor damage and, on driving up Ouaisné Hill, forced
another car into the rain gutter as he drove round a corner on the wrong side
of the road. On the Route des Genêts he failed to see, and struck a 15-year-old
cyclist who was thrown into the air and killed. He was charged, inter alia, with manslaughter. The
Bailiff gave a preliminary ruling, and held that the correct direction to the
jury, in summary, was that, before they could convict, they must be satisfied
that the defendant caused the death of the victim by his grossly negligent
driving. Hall was convicted, and sentenced to 3 years’ imprisonment.
47 On appeal, the Bailiff’s direction
that a very high degree of negligence was required was upheld, and the appeal
was dismissed. The Court of Appeal reviewed the English authorities which had
preceded and followed the Jersey case of Renouf v Att Gen,
including R v Bateman (medical
manslaughter)
and Andrews v DPP
(motor manslaughter).
The court cited with approval a passage from the judgment of Lord Atkin in Andrews—
“The principle to be observed is that cases of
manslaughter in driving motor cars are but instances of a general rule
applicable to all charges of homicide by negligence. Simple lack of care such
as will constitute civil liability is not enough: for purposes of the criminal
law there are degrees of negligence: a very high degree of negligence is
required to be proved before the felony is established. Probably of all the
epithets ‘reckless’ most nearly covers the case. It is difficult to
visualize a case of death caused by reckless driving in the connotation of that
term in ordinary speech which would not justify a conviction for manslaughter:
but it is probably not all-embracing for ‘reckless’ suggests an
indifference to risk whereas the accused may have appreciated the risk and
intended to avoid it and yet shown such a high degree of negligence in the
means adopted to avoid the risk as would justify conviction. If the principle
of Bateman’s case
. . . is observed, it will appear that the law of manslaughter has
not changed by the introduction of motor vehicles on the road. Death caused by
their negligent driving, though unhappily much more frequent, is to be treated
as death caused by any other form of negligence: and juries should be directed
accordingly.
48 As will be seen from the following
paragraphs, it seems that the law of the Channel Islands are marching very much
in step.
Guernsey law
49 In two judgments,[51] Judge
Finch dealt with the competing arguments submitted by the prosecution and
defence, concluding that “what P has to prove is now well
established”. He then set out the five elements of the offence, on which
the Jurats were later directed in summing up. He
stated that the requirements necessary to establish the commission of the
offence of gross negligence manslaughter are as follows:
“(i) in accordance
with the ordinary principles of negligence, D owed the deceased a duty of care.
A person owes a duty of care to someone where it is reasonably foreseeable that
their acts or omissions will cause harm to another.
(ii) D was in breach of that duty of care. The
question of breach of that duty should be dealt with ‘in the round’
(R v Zaman [2017] EWCA
Crim 1783 at paragraphs 46–48).
(iii) a reasonably prudent person of D’s
experience and position would have foreseen that their actions or omissions
that made up the breach of duty exposed the deceased to an ‘obvious and
serious’ risk of death.
(iv) the breach of duty either caused, or made a
substantial contribution (or was one that was more than negligible) to the
deceased’s death. ‘Significant contribution’ is used in
Zaman, paragraph 48.
(v) the actions of D can correctly be characterized as
‘gross’ negligence and therefore criminal. The cases start with R v
Bateman (1927) 19 Cr. App. R. 8 (as
mentioned in the earlier judgment) and the conduct must be proved to show ‘such
disregard for the life or safety of others as to amount to a crime against the
State, and conduct deserving punishment’. As Lord Mackay of Clashfern LC said in Adomako at 187:
‘The essence of the matter
which is supremely a jury question is whether having regard to the risk of
death involved, the conduct of the defendant was so bad as in all the
circumstances, as to amount in their judgment to a criminal act or omission.’
In
other words, conduct that was truly exceptionally bad and amounting to such a
departure from the proper care expected as to be truly reprehensible is
therefore a crime. These formulations amount to very much the same (onerous)
requirement.”[52]
50 A number of additional comments can be made
regarding the multitude of issues that were argued before Judge Finch during
the course of this prosecution. First, the question in element (i) as to whether or not there is a duty of care is a legal
matter on which the judge will direct the fact finders. In this case, as both
nurses were at work on duty on the ward where the death occurred, it was
conceded by the defence that the defendants owed a duty of care to their
patient, the deceased. In some cases beyond an immediate doctor/patient
relationship, the position may not be so clear cut, as is explored in some of
the articles mentioned above. However, in this case, notwithstanding the
aforementioned concession by the defence, Judge Finch was clear in his judgment
on preliminary issues that:
“The question of a ‘duty of care’ is
covered in various cases, notably in R v Evans [2009] EWCA
Crim 650 . . . In
the case of a nurse/patient relationship (as with a doctor/patient
relationship), the existence of a duty of care here should not, it appears, be
in dispute. If, for some reason there is a dispute then the judge will be able
to direct the Jurats that it is open to them to find
a duty of care; and if the facts specified were established, a duty would
arise. This is a question that, in my judgment, ought not to arise on the facts
of the case as presently put forward, unless there is some compelling reason
otherwise.”[53]
51 The judge
went on to say in his written directions to the Jurats
that “It is not disputed that in law a nurse owes a duty of care to a
patient”. It was also conceded that by failing to do the checks there was
a breach of the duty of care.
52 Element (iii) was highly contentious. A
direction was given in accordance with the decision in R v Rose (Honey). This was frequently
referred to in legal argument during the trial and is a good example of where
the English trial judge went astray in his directions, culminating in a
successful appeal. The vexed question for the Court of Appeal to consider was
whether the reasonable foreseeability of death was to be decided by reference
to what the defendant knew at the time of the breach, it being generally
accepted to be an objective consideration. The trial judge fell into error in Rose (Honey) in concluding that this
issue was to be judged not only by what the accused knew but also by what they
would have known but for the breach of duty. The Court of Appeal was quick to
reject this approach stating:
“The inherently objective nature of the test of
reasonable foreseeability does not turn it from a prospective into a
retrospective test. The question of available knowledge and risk is always to
be judged objectively and prospectively as at the moment of breach, not but for
the breach . . . The test of
reasonable foreseeability simply requires the notional objective exercise of
putting a reasonably prudent professional in the shoes of the person whose
conduct is under scrutiny and asking whether, at the moment of breach of the
duty on which the P rely, that person ought reasonably (i.e.
objectively) to have foreseen an obvious and serious risk of death . . .
in assessing reasonable foreseeability of serious and obvious risk of death
. . . it was therefore not appropriate to take into account what the
Defendant would have known but for his or her breach of duty.”[55]
53 This was a critical consideration for
the Royal Court as the accused had by their own admission not considered the
deceased’s recent medical history which was available to them in her
patient records. The amount and content of information handed over to the
defendants when they commenced their shift was disputed and so the defence case
was presented on the basis that this additional information (in the medical
history) could not be considered when assessing element (iii). In particular
the defence contended that the defendants were not aware of all available
additional information (i.e. beyond
that given in the hand over) regarding the deceased’s recent history of
serious self-harm. The decision in R v
Rose (Honey) has been the subject of academic comment as it clearly appears
to take no account of negligent ignorance of potentially important information.[56] Whilst
this is clearly the consequences of the decision, R v Rose (Honey) remains good law. In this case it meant the Jurats were in effect directed to consider the knowledge
the defendants had, as opposed to that which it could be argued they should, as
part of reasonable nursing practice, acquired by considering the available
medical records. Clearly in many cases it may be difficult for the prosecution
to establish exactly what information the defendants did know at the material
time, but in this case it was easy to prove what the defendants had looked at,
as the medical records are held electronically and each time they are viewed a
digital trace is left. In the case of one of the nurses it could be established
she had not used the system for a number of weeks. However, this provided
little assistance to the prosecution in respect of this element given the
decision in Rose (Honey) (as this
could be disregarded).
54 Two final points remain to be made. First,
gross negligence manslaughter has its roots in the general civil law of
negligence but does not mirror it exactly (for example there is no need to
prove pecuniary loss[57]). Reference
has already been made to an article above which discusses this further.[58] This
issue led to extensive arguments about causation and element (iv) during the
trial. Indeed this aspect formed a substantial part of a submission of no case
to answer by the defence after the prosecution case had closed. This was
resisted and the case was allowed to proceed but it was raised again at the
point of discussion about the proposed legal directions to be given to the Jurats. The question of factual and legal causation arose,
with the defence submitting that a clear direction on factual causation
incorporating the “but for” test was required.[59] The judge
concluded that three of the most recent decisions[60] dealing
with the elements of the offence had not required any specific direction on
factual causation and so the standard direction to be found in the Crown Court
Compendium 2019[61] was
adopted (as set out above) meaning that the judge made no direct reference to “but
for” causation. It would have no doubt formed an interesting discussion
on appeal had there been a conviction as there is a dearth of case law covering
the point despite it obviously being an essential element of proof. This would
have been a particularly interesting discussion as defence counsel effectively
repeated many of the submissions made in the no case submission and so
expressly addressed factual causation by reference to the “but for”
test causing the trial judge to provide additional guidance to the Jurats, in effect repeating the requirements of element (iv)
as set out above. The issue was critical in the case because the medical
evidence established that the deceased could have applied the ligature and died
within the 15 minute observation check window between one check and the next. This
led to the defence argument that factual causation in the “but for”
sense was absent as even if the checks had been done as required the deceased
could still have died.
55 A further matter which the court had to
resolve was the defence argument that the court did not need to add any gloss
to the requirement of the prosecution to prove that the conduct of the accused
was a “substantial” cause of death. There is no doubt the English
courts have not always been consistent, omitting in some decisions to expand
beyond the word “substantial”. However, the balance of recent case
law was clear that “substantial” was defined as “more than
negligible”. To a lay person the word substantial could connote a major
contribution to the death, and the defence were keen to avoid anything that
might dilute this. It was equally important to the prosecution, this being a
critical issue in the case, to persuade the court that the correct approach was
to follow the balance of English cases to dispel any notion that the
prosecution were required to prove the accused were the major, or most
significant contributors, to death. This would clearly be very difficult in
most cases, and particularly so in this case where the defence case was
presented on the basis that the contribution of the defendants was, at worse,
at the end of a long chain of failings by others.
56 The final aspect of the law requiring
comment is that of element (v). As has been mentioned, the article “Prosecuting
Medical Professionals for Manslaughter”[62] provides
some commentary on this aspect and suggests that the state of the law is
unsatisfactory in leaving such a critical element of the offence to the fact
finders. Indeed, to the experienced prosecutor this looks awfully like the
introduction to the elements of the offence something akin to the public
interest test (found in any prosecutor’s code[63]).
Questions of whether the conduct is so “truly exceptionally bad” as
to merit prosecution and punishment certainly opens up the possibility of
different outcomes, depending on the make-up of the tribunal, where the life
experiences the jury or Jurats bring to the court
room will inevitably determine whether they think a person can be said to have
committed a crime. This is a particularly difficult consideration for a lay
person where they are called upon to determine the fate of a normally diligent
medical professional who may have omitted to do something vitally important
leading to the death of a patient. Sympathies will clearly be roused further if
there is any suggestion (as there was in this case) of that medical
professional being burnt out through working additional hours.
57 One
may ask, what else can the law do, in such a difficult scenario, than leave it
to the good sense of the fact-finding tribunal to determine if the conduct was
indeed a crime? It is suggested in the aforementioned article “Prosecuting
Medical Professionals for Manslaughter” that—
“a clear
distinction could be made between slips—medical mishaps that result from
simple human error, and violations—those resulting from a conscious
decision by the medical professional to disobey an accepted rule of proper
practice”.[64]
55 One would hope such considerations would be factored in at
the time of the decision to prosecute, but this remains a divisive and
controversial area as shown by the well-known prosecution in R v Bawa-Garba,
where the defendant’s conviction for gross negligence manslaughter and
subsequent removal from the medical register caused much consternation and
outrage across the medical profession worldwide. Equal consternation followed
from the relatives and wider public when her appeal against removal from the
register was successful. This case lead directly to the General Medical Council
commissioning its own review which was published in June 2019, but whether any
change in the law will occur remains to be seen. As Wicks v Law Officers illustrates, whether Guernsey will follow any
changes also remains resolutely a matter for the courts of Guernsey to decide.
Crown Advocate Chris Dunford is an Advocate of
the Royal court of Guernsey. Sarah Watson has been called to the Bar of England
and Wales and is a Prosecuting Lawyer in Guernsey. Both work for the Law
Officers of the Crown in St Peter Port, Guernsey, and were responsible for the
prosecution of this case.
The opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and not
representative of those of the Law Officers of the Crown or the States of
Guernsey.