Hall v Att. Gen. [1996] JLR 129 (19 April 1996)

Hall v Att. Gen. [1996] JLR 129 (19 April 1996)

A conviction for manslaughter by breach of duty requires a very high degree of negligence, but the trial judge is not required to use specific terms such as 'recklessness' or 'gross negligence' in directing the jury; the adequacy of the direction depends on the circumstances of the case.

Citation
[1996] JLR 129
Parties
Applicant: Hall; Respondent: Attorney General
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
19 April 1996
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Manslaughter, Mens Rea, Negligence, Jury Directions
Criminal Law Manslaughter Mens Rea Negligence Jury Directions

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hall

Applicant

Attorney General

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the required mens rea for manslaughter by breach of duty?
  2. 2 Is it necessary to use specific terms such as 'recklessness' or 'gross negligence' in jury directions?

Ratio Decidendi

A conviction for manslaughter by breach of duty requires a very high degree of negligence, but the trial judge is not required to use specific terms such as 'recklessness' or 'gross negligence' in directing the jury; the adequacy of the direction depends on the circumstances of the case.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed