Abstract
The legal basis for prosecution and conviction for gross negligence manslaughter has failed to provide prosecutors, judges, and juries with sufficient certainty as to what constitutes the offense in the nineteenth or twentieth centuries. It remains to be seen whether ‘revised guidance’ or a plea for clearer understanding of the elements of the offense of gross negligence manslaughter as set out in the rapid policy review will be a sufficient remedy to allay doctors fears, or whether an entirely new approach is required. If the latter, then founding the charge on the basis of a betrayal of trust between the patient and her doctor may represent a concept that the jury can recognize and empathize with. If a jury can understand a binary decision of betrayal vs nonbetrayal, then the judge's task of direction will be simplified, less ambiguous, providing certainty. At the same time, the Crown Prosecution Service of the UK may find it easier to identify the rare cases of betrayal of trust that merit prosecution. Level of evidenceV; expert opinion
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
