CRIME — Appeals — Interlocutory appeal — By accused against interlocutory judgment or order — where business-owner applicants charged with manslaughter by criminal negligence — where load being transported by truck alleged to have been inadequately restrained leading to a death on the road — where Crown case asserted duty of care owed by the applicants in their capacity as managers of business transporting the load — alleged negligence by omission or failure to implement safety procedures — whether primary judge erred in ruling that Crown case could proceed against the applicants on the basis of a duty of care in connection with applicants’ involvement in management of their business — whether facts alleged by Crown capable of establishing a duty of care that might form the basis of conviction for manslaughter by criminal negligence — principles for establishing duty of care in such circumstances considered
CRIME — Appeals — Interlocutory appeal — By accused against interlocutory judgment or order — leave to appeal — where Crown concession in oral submissions meant no dispute between parties about principal legal question raised by second ground of appeal — whether utility in granting leave to appeal in respect of second ground
Quick Take
1For manslaughter by criminal negligence based on omission, the voluntary assumption of responsibility for the safety of a dangerous activity is not a touchstone for, and does not by itself create, a duty of care; the Crown must allege facts showing the accused's acts or conduct played a causative part in creating the danger or that the accused personally assumed responsibility for the safety of the activity in a manner recognised at law.
2A person in a managerial position in a company may in principle owe a personal duty of care capable of founding a manslaughter conviction, but the Crown must identify specific acts or conduct — not mere failures to implement safety systems — by which the accused played a causative role in the dangerous state of affairs; the question whether such a duty exists in a novel case must proceed incrementally and by analogy to decided cases.
3The Court left open whether additional or different facts might establish a duty of care arising from a managerial role in the circumstances of this case.
