LAW

Published on
KembaraXtra-Case Law-R v Adomako (1994) - Gross Negligence Manslaughter
Core Principle: A medical professional (e.g., a doctor) can be held liable for manslaughter if their negligence directly results in the death of a patient.
Case Facts:
  • Defendant: Dr. Adomako, an anaesthetist.
  • Incident: Oxygen tube disconnected during an operation; Dr. Adomako failed to notice.
  • Consequence: Patient suffered a fatal heart attack due to lack of oxygen.
  • Charge: Manslaughter by gross negligence.
Decision (House of Lords):
  • Appeal dismissed; Dr. Adomako was found guilty of manslaughter by gross negligence.
Key Legal Standard (Lord Mackay):
  • The critical question for the jury: "Whether, having regard to the risk of death involved, the conduct of the defendant was so bad in all the circumstances as to amount in their judgment to a criminal act or omission."
Reinforcement from R v Bateman (1925) (Lord Hewitt CJ, approved by Lord Mackay):
  • Negligence must transcend civil compensation.
  • It must demonstrate such a disregard for the life and safety of others.
  • The negligence must be severe enough to constitute "a crime against the State and conduct deserving punishment."
Key Takeaways:
  • Gross Negligence Threshold: The negligence must be gross, meaning significantly beyond ordinary negligence. It's not enough for a doctor to simply make a mistake.
  • Risk of Death: The negligence must occur in a context where there is a significant risk of death.
  • Jury Question: Ultimately, it is up to the jury to decide if the negligence meets the high threshold for criminal liability, and whether it's actually a crime.




Picture
0 Comments