Originally Posted by
Easy Street
Intent, or its absence, is the difference between manslaughter and murder. Even lay people understand that, so your argument has no resonance whatsoever. Manslaughter very clearly means *unintentional* unlawful killing.
The Sentencing Council says this:
'Manslaughter is a crime that can be broken down into two groups:
1. Voluntary manslaughter - where the offender INTENDED......
2. Involuntary manslaughter - where the offender DID NOT INTEND....'
(See above) I was citing in the first instance the difference between negligence and gross negligence:
"Negligence is commonly defined as ‘the inadvertent taking of an unjustifiable risk’. Whereas, gross negligence is ‘a conscious act or omission in disregard of a legal duty and of the consequences to another party’. (Ormerod D. Smith 8 Hogan’s Criminal Law (11th edition))."
Logically (so doesn't necessarily apply to the law) to pursue Gross Negligence Manslaughter, one must first satisfy the Gross Negligence criteria?
It's certainly a difficult area, and legal opinion differs greatly. But, from the above sources, it would seem the decision to prosecute the pilot for GNM followed a decision by the CPS (?) that there was intent of some kind. All complicated by the sentencing guidelines changing in 2018. My brain hurts.