R v Misra and Srivastava
Gross negligence manslaughter is sufficiently certain to comply with the European Convention on Human Rights, and the risk must be a risk of death.
Facts
Two junior doctors were responsible for the care of a young man after a routine knee operation. Over two days, they failed to recognise and treat obvious signs that he had developed a serious infection, and he died of toxic shock syndrome. They were convicted of gross negligence manslaughter. They argued that the offence was so uncertain that it breached article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights, because the jury effectively decided for itself what conduct was criminal.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal upheld the convictions. Judge LJ said that the test in Adomako does not involve circularity, because the jury is asked to decide whether the defendant's conduct was so bad as to be criminal, which is a question of fact, not of law. The offence was sufficiently certain to satisfy article 7. The court also confirmed that the relevant risk for gross negligence manslaughter is a risk of death, not merely of serious injury.
Related cases on involuntary manslaughter
- DPP v Newbury and Jones [1977] AC 500
- R v Adomako [1995] 1 AC 171
- R v Bateman (1925) 19 Cr App R 8
- R v Bawa-Garba [2016] EWCA Crim 1841
- R v Cato [1976] 1 WLR 110
- R v Cotswold Geotechnical Holdings Ltd [2011] EWCA Crim 1337
- R v Dawson (1985) 81 Cr App R 150
- R v Goodfellow (1986) 83 Cr App R 23
Studying criminal law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
