The concept of causing death by reason of a rash, reckless or dangerous act constitutes a special area of criminal liability, which is distinct from the crimes of murder/manslaughter with intent. These are cases where the perpetrator does not directly seek to cause death, but his or her conduct is deemed so seriously negligent or dangerous as to render him or her criminally liable.
Cyprus law
In Cyprus, the Criminal Law, and in particular Article 210 of the Penal Code (Chapter 154), regulates cases in which reckless or dangerous behaviour leads to death. This provision requires that the accused caused death as a result of an act or omission done recklessly, or under circumstances that make it dangerous.
The basic requirement is the existence of conduct which, objectively, creates a serious risk to the life or physical integrity of other persons. Fraud or intent to cause death is not required; serious negligence or extreme recklessness is sufficient.
English law
In English law, the corresponding form of offence is mainly found under the heading of gross negligence manslaughter. Of decisive importance is the decision of the House of Lords in R v Adomako [1994], where the basic criteria were laid down:
- There is a duty of care on the part of the defendant to the victim,
- The duty was breached by act or omission,
- The breach caused the death, and
- The negligence is deemed so serious as to constitute a criminal offence./li>
Examples
Causing death by reckless act can arise in a number of circumstances, including:
- Road traffic accidents: Driver running a red light at excessive speed causing fatal injury.
- Occupational accidents: Contractor who fails to follow basic safety rules at a construction site.
- Misuse of dangerous objects: Owner of a weapon who leaves it unattended in an area where minors have access to it.
In all of these cases, the central question is whether the offender's conduct exceeded the threshold of ordinary care.
The Mens Rea
Unlike intentional homicide crimes, in causing death by reckless act the issue is one of gross negligence or reckless indifference. The defendant is judged on the basis of whether a reasonable person, in similar circumstances, would have foreseen the danger.
It is noted that mere negligence is not sufficient. The level of recklessness must be such as to be criminally reprehensible.
Examination of the circumstances
The Courts, both in Cyprus and in the UK, consider each case on its own particular facts. Among other things, they take into account:
- The nature and extent of the risk,
- Any external interference or unforeseen developments.
No mechanistic approach shall be adopted. Each case is judged on an ad hoc basis, based on its specific factual circumstances.
Defences
The key defences in such charges include:
- The proof that the defendant's act was reasonable under the circumstances,
- The existence of an unforeseeable break in causation (novus actus interveniens),
- Occasionally, the lack of a causal link between the act and the result.
Causation is a fundamental element of criminal liability and requires proof that the defendant's act or omission was a substantial and operative cause of the death. It is not enough to establish a theoretical link; the conduct must, in the natural course of events, have led to the outcome, without the causal chain being broken by unforeseen or intervening acts (novus actus interveniens). The test of foreseeability is key: it is not necessary to foresee the precise sequence of events, but rather the general nature of the risk that resulted in death.
It should be noted that successful invocation of such defences requires a particularly thorough analysis and presentation of the evidence.
Case Reference in Cyprus: The Mari Explosion and the Application of the UK's R v. Adomako in Cyprus
The concept of "gross negligence", as required under Article 205 of the Cyprus Penal Code, was extensively examined by the Full Bench of the Supreme Court in the landmark case of the fatal Mari explosion ((2014) 2 AAD 965). In that case, the then Minister of Defence, Kostas Papacostas, was found guilty of manslaughter due to gross negligence, as he failed to act despite knowing the imminent and foreseeable danger posed by the prolonged outdoor storage of explosive materials, resulting in the death of 13 individuals.
The Court clarified that the degree of criminal negligence required for a conviction under Article 205 must approach the threshold of "gross negligence", in line with the Anglo-Saxon common law principles established in the House of Lords decision in R v Adomako [1994] 3 All ER 79. That case outlined four essential criteria: existence of a duty of care, breach of that duty, causation of death, and a level of negligence so severe as to warrant criminal liability.
Cypriot case law has adopted the Adomako reasoning, particularly in its emphasis on the objective evaluation of negligence through the lens of the reasonable person and the requirement that the breach of duty be a substantial cause of death.
Conclusions
Causing death by a reckless, careless or dangerous act is a complex legal issue, involving the need to impose criminal liability in respect for the principle of personal responsibility.
Case law in both Cyprus and the United Kingdom demonstrates that not all fault or negligence is sufficient to support a conviction. Rather, a high level of recklessness or negligence is required, judged by the surrounding circumstances.
Careful legal assessment of each case is necessary, both for the defence and in support of the prosecution.
A recent case of our firm
Our firm recently handled a significant criminal case of reckless, careless or dangerous act charges that have allegedly cause death. Specifically, our client was driving his vehicle on a downhill dirt road when, due to difficult road conditions, the vehicle lost control and overturned, tragically resulting in the death of the passenger.
Through our strategic defence, we proved that it was an unavoidable accident, without any serious negligence on the part of our client. It was not proven that he was driving at excessive speed or under dangerous conditions beyond the objectively difficult road characteristics. The Court, recognizing the absence of reckless conduct, acquitted our client in full.
This case highlights the importance of proper legal analysis and factual presentation in such charges, including the presence of expert witnesses in court.
How we can represent our clients
Our firm has expertise and years of experience in defending all types of cases, including wrongful death due to a reckless, careless or dangerous act. If you or a loved one needs legal support in a similar case, you can contact our firm for an evaluation of your case.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
