R v Rose [2017]

R v Rose [2017]

R v Rose [2017] EWCA Crim 1168 holds significant implications for the legal understanding of gross negligence manslaughter, particularly within the context of medical professionals and their duty of care. In this case, the defendant, an optometrist, was initially convicted of gross negligence manslaughter but was subsequently acquitted by the Court of Appeal. The case established crucial legal principles that shed light on the necessary elements for a gross negligence manslaughter conviction.

The court emphasised that for a gross negligence manslaughter conviction to stand, there must be a serious and obvious risk of death at the time of the breach. Importantly, this risk must be reasonably foreseeable without considering the information that the defendant should have had available had they not breached their duty of care. The ruling underscores the significance of evaluating foreseeability at the moment of the breach, without hindsight considerations based on the defendant's failure to possess specific information due to the breach.

In the factual backdrop of the case, the optometrist had conducted a routine eye examination during which she inadvertently viewed images from the previous year. Subsequently, the patient fell seriously ill and passed away due to hydrocephalus, a condition recognisable through a specific examination that all competent optometrists were obligated to perform. The legal issue revolved around whether there was a serious and obvious risk of death at the point of the breach – the time of the eye examination.

The Court of Appeal, led by Sir Brian Levenson, allowed the appeal and acquitted the defendant of gross negligence manslaughter. The court's decision hinged on the determination that there was no serious and obvious risk of death at the time of the breach. Sir Brian Levenson asserted that the lack of knowledge about a serious and obvious risk of death at the time of the breach was crucial for establishing gross negligence manslaughter. The court rejected the argument that the defendant's own breach of duty should be the focus, emphasising that the cause of the lack of knowledge is not the determinative factor.

Of particular note is the court's recognition of the potential serious implications for medical and other professions. The ruling highlighted that individuals should not be deemed guilty of gross negligence manslaughter merely due to negligent omissions in carrying out routine tests. Even if these tests could have revealed fatal conditions, a conviction should not be based on the failure to foresee an obvious and serious risk of death in the circumstances.

In conclusion, this case clarifies the elements required for a gross negligence manslaughter conviction, especially in cases involving medical professionals. The emphasis on evaluating foreseeability at the time of the breach, without considering subsequent failures to acquire information, provides a nuanced understanding of the legal standards applicable to such cases. The ruling's impact resonates beyond this specific case, as it underscores the necessity of establishing a serious and obvious risk of death at the critical moment of the alleged breach of duty.
Back to blog
UOL Case Bank

UOL Case Bank

Upon joining, you become a valuable UOL student and gain instant access to over 2,100 case summaries. UOL Case Bank is constantly expanding. Speed up your revision with us now.

Subscribe Now

Where are our students from?

Yale University
Council of Europe
Baker Mckenzie 
University of Chicago
Columbia University
New York University
University of Michigan 
University College London (UCL)
London School of Economics (LSE)
King’s College London (KCL)
University of London
University of Manchester
University of Zurich
University of York
Brandeis University
University of Exeter
University of Sheffield
Boston University
University of Washington
University of Leeds
University of Law
Royal Holloway, University of London 
Birkbeck, University of London
SOAS, University of London
University of Kent
University of Hull
Queen’s University Belfast
Toronto Metropolitan University
Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
University of Buckingham

  • Criminal Practice

    Diagrams and Charts

    Our carefully designed diagrams and charts will guide you through complex legal issues.

  • Criminal Law

    Clear and Succinct Definitions

    Key concepts are concisely defined to help you understand legal topics quickly.

  • Property Law

    Statutory Provisions

    Statutory provisions are provided side by side with legal concepts to help you swiftly locate the relevant legislation.

  • Public Law

    Case Summaries

    We have summarised important cases for you so that you don't need to read long and boring cases.

  • Evidence

    Rules and Exceptions

    Rules and exceptions are clearly listed so that you know when a rule applies and when it doesn't.

  • Company Law


    Legal terms and key concepts are explained at the beginning of each chapter to help you learn efficiently.

  • Case Law

    Case law is provided side by side with legal concepts so that you know how legal principles and precedents were established.

  • Law Exam Guide

    Law Essay Guide

    You will learn essential law exam skills and essay writing techniques that are not taught in class.

  • Law Exam Guide

    Problem Question Guide

    We will show you how to answer problem questions step by step to achieve first-class results.

  • Conflict of Laws

    Structured Explanations

    Complex legal concepts are broken down into concise and digestible bullet point explanations.

  • Legal System and Method

    Legal Research

    You will learn legal research techniques with our study guide and become a proficient legal researcher.

  • Jurisprudence and Legal Theory


    All essential concepts, principles, and case law are included so that you can answer exam questions quickly.