R v Broughton

Case Name: R v Broughton

Court: Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)

Date: 8.2020

Citation: [2020] EWCA Crim 1093

Introduction

R v Broughton is the symbolic precedent in the England Criminal Law in terms of gross negligence manslaughter. It gives a further explanation of the actus reus and causation in such a case. This case focuses more on the causation and the criminal proving standard of it and the existence of a duty of care in a special situation. This case illustrates that even if a defendant is blameworthy in ethics, he should not be convicted without the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

Facts of the Case

Broughton is the boy and friend of Louella, who is 16 years old. In the evening, when the accident happened. They joined in the music festival together and took the drugs like LSD. After voluntarily taking the excessive drug mixed with ketamine and ecstasy provided by her boyfriend, Louella showed the symptoms of intoxication, such as insanity and great emotional changes. Broughton clearly knew the dangerous and emergent condition of Louella but refused the request of Louella’s family to take Louella to a medical centre and did not secure medical assistance to save her life. According to the medical report, medical interventions before 21.10 have a 90% possibility to save Louella’s life. Finally, Louella died of the complications of drugs. Broughton supplied Louella with the 2C-P and refused to give medical assistance after Louella was in a dangerous situation caused by the drug. The appellant was convicted of manslaughter by breaching the duty of care to Louella.

The defendant was charged with gross negligence manslaughter in the trial and was convicted. Later, the defendant appealed to challenge the causation between his acts and Louella’s death.

Legal Issue

• Did the defendant has a duty of care to the victim?
• Whether the role of the boyfriend and the acts of supplying drugs can form the legal duty of care, such as the relationships between the parents and child?
• Did the acts of the defendant amount to gross negligence suffice for criminal liability?
• Is there legal and factual causation between gross negligence and the victim’s death?
• Even if there is negligence, whether the victim could survive if the defendant had fulfilled the duty of care?
• Whether the prosecutor can prove the victim had a real and substantial chance of survival?[1]
• Is there a breach of duty of care?

Arguments

 The arguments of the prosecution:

• The existence of a duty of care

The prosecution thinks that the defendant is the boyfriend of the victim. He supplied the drug and they took the drug together. He created a dangerous situation for the victim. When the victim was dying, he did not secure medical assistance. He place the victim in a dangerous situation. There is duty of care.

• The breach of duty of care

The prosecution held that the defendant had more than six hours to call for medical assistance, but he did not. He even tried to conceal the drug. Such an act is beyond ordinary negligence. It is gross negligence.

• The causation between the defendant’s acts and victim’s death

According to the testimony of a medical expert, if the defendant had called medical assistance, there was a high possibility of saving the victim’s life.

• The decision from the jury

The case should be left to the jury rather than directly excluded by judges.

The argument of the defendant

• The duty of care is not established

The defendant is not a doctor, custodian, or carer of the victim. He is just a companion taking drugs with the victim. Convicting him will overly expand the scope of the duty of care, causing over-criminalizing.

• Lack of proof to show the death is avoidable

According to the medical report, it is not certain that the victim would survive as the defendant had called the medical assistance. The rate is speculative, which can not prove the legal causation between the defendant’s acts and the victim’s death.

• The criminal proof standard is not satisfied

The prosecution did not prove the causation beyond a reasonable doubt.

Court’s Analysis

 The Court of Appeal accepted the principle established in the R v Adomako[2] and it emphasized the elements of gross negligence manslaughter.

The elements the prosecution must prove:

1. The defendant must owe an existing duty of care to the victim.
2. The defendant must negligently breach that duty of care
3. At the time of the breach there must be a serious and obvious risk of death. Seriousness, in this context, qualifies the nature of the risk of death as something much more than minimal or remote. The risk of injury or illness, even serious injury or illness, is not enough. An obvious risk is one that is present, clear, and unambiguous. It is immediately apparent, striking and glaring rather than something that might become apparent on further investigation.
4. It must be reasonably foreseeable at that time that the breach gives rise to a serious and obvious risk of death
5. The breach must cause or significantly (i.e. more than minimally) contribute to the death of the victim
6. The jury must consider that the circumstances of the breach were truly exceptionally bad and so reprehensible as to justify the conclusion that it amounted to gross negligence and required criminal sanction.

To convict the defendant of gross negligence manslaughter, the prosecution must prove all elements beyond reasonable doubt. They are the existence of a duty of care, a breach of that duty of care, great risk to death, gross negligence, and causation.

In this case, the court needs to consider two material questions: whether the appellant’s breach of duty created by supplying drugs to Louella significantly contributed to the cause of death and how much the possibility of survival would have been if Louella had been treated in time by a medical practitioner.

The Court of Appeal thinks gross negligence manslaughter can be proved only when the prosecution must show that medical aid can 100% save Louella’s life. In other words, the negligence should substantially contribute to the death.

There is no evidence the prosecution can provide to show the significant causation between negligence and death. According to Professor Deakin’s report, there is a 90% chance of survival after treatment. The prosecution could only prove the great reduction in the possibility of survival due to lack of medical assistance and failed to give evidence that negligence was the only cause of the death.

Therefore, the Court of Appeal quashes the conviction because the prosecution cannot prove the causation beyond a reasonable doubt.

Decisions

The Court decided to quash the conviction of gross negligence manslaughter because the prosecution failed to prove the legal causation beyond the reasonable doubt. To confirm causation, the jury must be sure that, absent the breach of duty, the death would not have occurred.[3] The causation should be tested by a strict standard. Even if morally troubling, the law does not permit conviction unless all the legal ingredients are proven to the criminal standard.[4]

Significance

This case established and emphasized the principle that causation in criminal negligence must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, not merely on the balance of probabilities, and when there is no evidence to show that the intervention of an act can change the consequence, it is hard to count the omission into the criminal liability. This case illustrates that criminal law is not an instrument of moral condemnation but of legal certainty.[5] Moreover, its decision reinforces the criminal law’s intolerance for speculative causal links in gross negligence manslaughter.[6] It has a guiding function of reminding people of the importance of medical and scientific evidence when analyzing the crime of gross negligence manslaughter.

Conclusion

R v Broughton is an important precedent in terms of gross negligence manslaughter in England Criminal Law. The Court established a principle that only when the prosecution can prove the omission of the defendant directly caused the death of the victim and the causation is proved beyond reasonable doubt can criminal liability be established. Even if the defendant is blameworthy in ethics, he cannot be convicted of gross negligence manslaughter if there is no sufficient medical or scientific evidence to show his acts are the substantial cause of the victim’s death. So,  the case enhances the necessity of a positive chain of causation in Criminal Law to avoid blurring standards of social ethics and prevent emotional judgment from replacing legal judgment. Besides, this case decision shows the principle of the rule of law to strictly and rationally control the punishment. R v Broughton further established the standard of causation between omission and victim’s death and gave a precedent for analyzing the case associated with death caused by drugs. It shows the preservation of legal logic and legal certainty in English law.

Reference

Table of Cases

1. R v Adomako [1995] 1 AC 171 (HL)
2. R v Broughton [2020] EWCA Crim 1093
3. R v Rose [2017] EWCA Crim 1168

Table of Secondary Sources

4. Jonathan Herring, Criminal Law (14th edn, Oxford University Press 2022)
5. Dennis J Baker and Glanville L Williams, Glaser on Criminal Law (6th edn, Sweet & Maxwell 2021)

[1] R v Rose [2017] EWCA Crim 1168

[2] R v Adomako [1995] 1 AC 171

[3] R v Broughton [2020] EWCA Crim 1093

[4] ibid

[5] Herring, Criminal Law, 14th edn, 2022

[6] Baker, Glaser on Criminal Law, 2021