ruri3 发表于 3-11-2012 03:34 AM 
谢谢你的讲解~~
可是我以为gross negli还是negli的一种... 不过不是under tort而已...是criminal的
Adomako v R提出了三个用来establish GNM的pre-condition,分别是是DOC and Breach and jury’s perception of criminal conviction,但其实我觉得实际上只有两个pre-condition,那就是Duty和breach,而jury’s perception只是Breach的standard,在tort of negligence, the standard of care 是a reasonable man, 但GNM的standard是the breachis so gross to the extent that jury might think that it should amount to acriminal offence,所以如果用巴仙率来解释的话,如果tort的standard是80%的人不会这样做,这样GNM的standard就是90%的人不会这样做了。从Beyond reasonable doubt 和balance ofprobabilities的issue,我们就知道,to convict a person under criminal offence, the degree of wrongful act must be higher than civil matter,所以说GrossNegligence 是negligence的升级版,就好像murder 和manlaughter的关系一样,两者都是杀人,但需要prove的element却不一样,所以我们不可以说murder = manslaughter。
如果 R v Bennett是civilmatter,这样D肯定是liable的,D有duty to take care of his neighbourhood,但他却放置大量的explosive material,这已经表示他有breach,for causation, but for his storing of explosivematerial, the victim would not have been injured,for remoteness, as a reasonable man,he must be able to foresee theincident,所以在tort,他一定会输,但在criminal, the standard of breach must be higher. If we are usingthe same scenario, D can only be convicted, if he discovered the explosion, butfailed to take action to mitigate the damage,就好像有人不小心令到一间屋子起火,但却不顾而去,这样才会liable for GNM.在Bennett的judgement, judge要表示的是 当时D是没有在现场,所以也不会不顾而去,所以not liable. Jury当然是reasonable man,但他们要做的,不是consider “whether a reasonable man would have committed it”,而是’whether a reasonable man would think that D’s negligence is so gross to the extent that it will amount to a criminal offence.
for road accident 的,the standard of careless driving in Tort and the standard of careless driving in Criminal 也是不同的。 在tort,只要被判定了有breach,比如只是简单的没有看side mirror就吃过另一条line,导致意外发生,这样在tort就是careless driving,而criminal 的carelessdriving,一定要prove: Speeding和Driving after drinking alcohol之类的,所以可能它们share一样的terminology,但standard却是不同的。
但这也是个人的见解,没有任何冒犯的意图。=)
本帖最后由 迷茫羔羊 于 3-11-2012 10:07 AM 编辑
|