R v Adomako

Last updated

R v Adomako
Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom.svg
Court House of Lords
Full case nameRegina (Respondent) v. Adomako (Appellant)
Decided30 June 1994
Citation(s)
  • 98 Cr App R 282
  • [1994] 3 All ER 79
  • [1994] 3 WLR 288
  • (1994) 98 Cr App R 282
  • [1994] UKHL 6
  • [1995] AC 171
  • [1995] 1 AC 171
Transcript(s) transcript at BAILII
Cases cited
  • R v. Seymour (Edward) [1983] 2 A.C. 493
  • R v. Bateman 19 Cr. App. R. 8
  • Andrews v. Director of Public Prosecutions [1937] A.C. 576
  • R v. Lawrence (Stephen) [1982] A.C. 510
  • R v. Williamson (1807) 3 C. & P. 635
  • Kong Cheuk Kwan v The Queen (1985) 82 Cr. App. R. 18
  • R v. Stone [1977] Q.B. 354
  • R v. West London Coroner, Ex parte Gray [1988] Q.B. 467
Court membership
Judges sitting
Keywords

R v Adomako [1994] UKHL 6, was a landmark United Kingdom criminal law case where the required elements to satisfy the legal test for gross negligence manslaughter at common law were endorsed and refined. [1] It was held that in cases of manslaughter by criminal negligence involving a breach of duty the gross negligence test relied on by the Court of Appeal was sufficient and that it was not necessary to direct a jury to consider whether the recklessness definition should be applied. The test, as set out in R v Bateman 19 Cr. App. R.8 and Andrews v DPP [1937] AC 576, confirmed that there needed to be in existence a breach of duty of care where the serious and obvious risk of death was reasonably foreseeable and that the breach or omission in question caused actual death and that the conduct of the defendant, when all the circumstances were considered, was so bad as to amount to a criminal act or omission. [2] [3] The requirement to show that the defendant's breach of duty was "gross" helped develop the definition of gross negligence. [4]

Contents

Facts

On 4 January 1987, Alan Loveland, a thirty-three-year-old man, underwent an eye operation for detached retina. [5] [6] At 9:45 am, anaesthesia was induced by the intravenous administration of paralytic drugs and an endotracheal tube was inserted to enable the patient to breathe with the aid of a mechanical ventilator. [7]

At 45 minutes into the operation there was a change of anaesthetist from the registrar, Dr. Said and his assistant, to Dr John Adomako, a locum peripatetic. [5] Around 35 minutes later, the supply of oxygen to the patient was interrupted by the endotracheal tube becoming disconnected. The disconnected ventilator went unnoticed and unremedied by the appellant, Dr Adomako. It was not until an alarm sounded on a blood pressure monitoring machine that the anaesthetist was alerted to a problem of some kind at which point Dr Adomako checked various pieces of equipment but failed to notice the disconnected oxygen tube which by now had not been supplying oxygen for at least four and a half minutes. [7] A period of hypoxia led to cardiac arrest at 11:14 am, some 11 minutes after the tube became disconnected. [8] It was the eye surgeon who noticed that the ventilator was disconnected and this was after resuscitation had commenced. [5] Although Alan Loveland was successfully resuscitated, the prolonged period of oxygen deprivation caused cerebral hypoxia leading to severe brain damage. Alan Loveland never regained consciousness and died 6 months later. [5]

On 26 January 1990 a jury convicted John Adomako of gross negligence manslaughter by a majority of 11 to 1. [9] [10] Mr Adomako appealed his conviction challenging the basis that a breach of duty should not have amounted to involuntary manslaughter, however, his conviction was upheld by the House of Lords. [11] [5]

Judgment

Mr Adomako's appeal was dismissed. [11] The House of Lords held that the ordinary common law principles of negligence had to be applied and that it needed to be established whether the appellant's negligent conduct was so bad in all the circumstances as to amount to a criminal act or omission. [7] Adomako was under a duty to act as a reasonable anaesthetist. [12]

The House of Lords in R v Adomako clarified the requisite elements [lower-alpha 1] for gross negligence manslaughter at common law with a four-part test which became known as the Adomako test: [15] [13]

Lord Mackay of Clashfern expanded on how the test for involuntary manslaughter was formulated:

On this basis in my opinion the ordinary principles of the law of negligence apply to ascertain whether or not the defendant has been in breach of a duty of care towards the victim who has died. If such breach of duty is established the next question is whether that breach of duty caused the death of the victim. If so, the jury must go on to consider whether that breach of duty should be characterised as gross negligence and therefore as a crime. This will depend on the seriousness of the breach of duty committed by the defendant in all the circumstances in which the defendant was placed when it occurred. The jury will have to consider whether the extent to which the defendant's conduct departed from the proper standard of care incumbent upon him, involving as it must have done a risk of death to the patient, was such that it should be judged criminal.

—  Lord Mackay of Clashfern L. C., R v. Adomako [1995] 1 A.C. 171., BAILII transcript

Circularity of the Adomako test

The application of the test for gross negligence manslaughter in Adomako has been identified as involving an element of circularity. [16] Lord Mackay conceded that the formulation of the test involved a circularity element but that this was not fatal to this test being the right one in order to identify how far the defendant's "conduct must depart from accepted standards to be characterised as criminal". [7] [17] The circularity problem is that the jury must be directed to convict the defendant if they, the jury, believe the conduct of the defendant was "criminal". This, however, leaves the burden of a question of law to be decided by the jury where they would not usually be expected to supply reasons for their verdicts which, in turn, leads to the problem of not being able to readily identify which criteria the jury applied for their determination in a certain case. [18]

Grossness element

The determination of the element of "grossness" in negligence can be variable and inexact. [19] In a criminal court, it must be established that there is mens rea , where the extent of the defendant's liability depends on the amount of damage done and the degree of negligence. [20] [21] It is for the jury to examine the defendant's conduct in order to determine whether the element of "grossness" is sufficiently serious that it amounts to a criminal offence and would therefore warrant criminal liability for manslaughter. [22] In the case of Adomako, the breach of duty was so serious that the appellant's conduct amounted to "a gross dereliction of care". [23]

See also

Notes

  1. ↑ The Court of Appeal in R v Prentice made reference to ingredients at [1994] Q.B. 302 [13] and in R v Rudling [2016] EWCA Crim 741 at para. 18, as critical ingredients [14]

Related Research Articles

Negligence is a failure to exercise appropriate and/or ethical ruled care expected to be exercised amongst specified circumstances. The area of tort law known as negligence involves harm caused by failing to act as a form of carelessness possibly with extenuating circumstances. The core concept of negligence is that people should exercise reasonable care in their actions, by taking account of the potential harm that they might foreseeably cause to other people or property.

In criminal law, mens rea is the mental state of a defendant who is accused of committing a crime. In common law jurisdictions, most crimes require proof both of mens rea and actus reus before the defendant can be found guilty.

In criminal law, criminal negligence is an offence that involves a breach of an objective standard of behaviour expected of a defendant. It may be contrasted with strictly liable offences, which do not consider states of mind in determining criminal liability, or offenses that requires mens rea, a mental state of guilt.

Gross negligence is the "lack of slight diligence or care" or "a conscious, voluntary act or omission in reckless disregard of a legal duty and of the consequences to another party." In some jurisdictions a person injured as a result of gross negligence may be able to recover punitive damages from the person who caused the injury or loss.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Duty of care</span> Legal standard of care in activity

In tort law, a duty of care is a legal obligation that is imposed on an individual, requiring adherence to a standard of reasonable care to avoid careless acts that could foreseeably harm others, and lead to claim in negligence. It is the first element that must be established to proceed with an action in negligence. The claimant must be able to show a duty of care imposed by law that the defendant has breached. In turn, breaching a duty may subject an individual to liability. The duty of care may be imposed by operation of law between individuals who have no current direct relationship but eventually become related in some manner, as defined by common law.

Roe v Minister of Health [1954] 2 All ER 131 is an English tort law decision of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales which has had a significant influence on the common law throughout the common law world.

Corporate manslaughter is a criminal offence in English law, being an act of homicide committed by a company or organisation. In general, in English criminal law, a juristic person is in the same position as a natural person, and may be convicted for committing many offences. The Court of Appeal confirmed in one of the cases following the Herald of Free Enterprise disaster that a company can, in principle, commit manslaughter, although all defendants in that case were acquitted.

In criminal law, a mistake of fact may sometimes mean that, while a person has committed the physical element of an offence, because they were labouring under a mistake of fact, they never formed the mental element. This is unlike a mistake of law, which is not usually a defense; law enforcement may or may not take for granted that individuals know what the law is.

Causation is the "causal relationship between the defendant's conduct and end result". In other words, causation provides a means of connecting conduct with a resulting effect, typically an injury. In criminal law, it is defined as the actus reus from which the specific injury or other effect arose and is combined with mens rea to comprise the elements of guilt. Causation only applies where a result has been achieved and therefore is immaterial with regard to inchoate offenses.

In criminal law and in the law of tort, recklessness may be defined as the state of mind where a person deliberately and unjustifiably pursues a course of action while consciously disregarding any risks flowing from such action. Recklessness is less culpable than malice, but is more blameworthy than carelessness.

In law, an omission is a failure to act, which generally attracts different legal consequences from positive conduct. In the criminal law, an omission will constitute an actus reus and give rise to liability only when the law imposes a duty to act and the defendant is in breach of that duty. In tort law, similarly, liability will be imposed for an omission only exceptionally, when it can be established that the defendant was under a duty to act or duty of care.

Self-defence is a defence permitting reasonable force to be used to defend one's self or another. This defence arises from both common law and the Criminal Law Act 1967. Self-defence is a justification defence rather than an excuse.

Murder is an offence under the common law legal system of England and Wales. It is considered the most serious form of homicide, in which one person kills another with the intention to unlawfully cause either death or serious injury. The element of intentionality was originally termed malice aforethought, although it required neither malice nor premeditation. Baker, chapter 14 states that many killings done with a high degree of subjective recklessness were treated as murder from the 12th century right through until the 1974 decision in DPP v Hyam.

Duress in English law is a complete common law defence, operating in favour of those who commit crimes because they are forced or compelled to do so by the circumstances, or the threats of another. The doctrine arises not only in criminal law but also in civil law, where it is relevant to contract law and trusts law.

In English law, provocation was a mitigatory defence to murder which had taken many guises over generations many of which had been strongly disapproved and modified. In closing decades, in widely upheld form, it amounted to proving a reasonable total loss of control as a response to another's objectively provocative conduct sufficient to convert what would otherwise have been murder into manslaughter. It only applied to murder. It was abolished on 4 October 2010 by section 56(1) of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, but thereby replaced by the superseding—and more precisely worded—loss of control defence.

In English law, diminished responsibility is one of the partial defenses that reduce the offense from murder to manslaughter if successful. This allows the judge sentencing discretion, e.g. to impose a hospital order under section 37 of the Mental Health Act 1983 to ensure treatment rather than punishment in appropriate cases. Thus, when the actus reus of death is accompanied by an objective or constructive version of mens rea, the subjective evidence that the defendant did intend to kill or cause grievous bodily harm because of a mental incapacity will partially excuse his conduct. Under s.2(2) of the Homicide Act 1957 the burden of proof is on the defendant to the balance of probabilities. The M'Naghten Rules lack a volitional limb of "irresistible impulse"; diminished responsibility is the volitional mental condition defense in English criminal law.

In the English law of homicide, manslaughter is a less serious offence than murder, the differential being between levels of fault based on the mens rea or by reason of a partial defence. In England and Wales, a common practice is to prefer a charge of murder, with the judge or defence able to introduce manslaughter as an option. The jury then decides whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty of either murder or manslaughter. On conviction for manslaughter, sentencing is at the judge's discretion, whereas a sentence of life imprisonment is mandatory on conviction for murder. Manslaughter may be either voluntary or involuntary, depending on whether the accused has the required mens rea for murder.

Manslaughter is a common law legal term for homicide considered by law as less culpable than murder. The distinction between murder and manslaughter is sometimes said to have first been made by the ancient Athenian lawmaker Draco in the 7th century BC.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">English criminal law</span> Legal system of England and Wales relating to crime

English criminal law concerns offences, their prevention and the consequences, in England and Wales. Criminal conduct is considered to be a wrong against the whole of a community, rather than just the private individuals affected. The state, in addition to certain international organisations, has responsibility for crime prevention, for bringing the culprits to justice, and for dealing with convicted offenders. The police, the criminal courts and prisons are all publicly funded services, though the main focus of criminal law concerns the role of the courts, how they apply criminal statutes and common law, and why some forms of behaviour are considered criminal. The fundamentals of a crime are a guilty act and a guilty mental state. The traditional view is that moral culpability requires that a defendant should have recognised or intended that they were acting wrongly, although in modern regulation a large number of offences relating to road traffic, environmental damage, financial services and corporations, create strict liability that can be proven simply by the guilty act.

English law contains homicide offences – those acts involving the death of another person. For a crime to be considered homicide, it must take place after the victim's legally recognised birth, and before their legal death. There is also the usually uncontroversial requirement that the victim be under the "King's peace". The death must be causally linked to the actions of the defendant. Since the abolition of the year and a day rule, there is no maximum time period between any act being committed and the victim's death, so long as the former caused the latter.

References

  1. ↑ Quick, Oliver (2010). "Medicine, Mistakes and Manslaughter: A Criminal Combination?". The Cambridge Law Journal. 69 (1): 186–203. doi:10.1017/S0008197310000231. ISSN   0008-1973. JSTOR   40731214. S2CID   145789041.
  2. ↑ "Gross Negligence Manslaughter". www.cps.gov.uk. The Crown Prosecution Service. 14 March 2019. Retrieved 6 January 2023.
  3. ↑ "Gross negligence manslaughter: prison awaits | Croner-i". app.croneri.co.uk. 1 July 2019. Retrieved 6 January 2023.
  4. ↑ Herring, J. (2018). Criminal Law: Text, Cases, and Materials. Oxford University Press. p. 273. ISBN   9780198811817. It must be shown that the defendant's breach of duty was gross. Lord Mackay in Adomako explained that the jury should ask themselves whether the defendant's actions or omissions were so bad as to deserve a criminal conviction.
  5. 1 2 3 4 5 Alghrani, A. Griffiths, D. Bennett, R. Sanders, A. Ost, S. Bioethics, Medicine and the Criminal Law , p. 57, at Google Books
  6. ↑ Brahams, Diana (23 July 1994). "MEDICINE AND THE LAW: Medical manslaughter". The Lancet. 344 (8917): 256. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(94)93018-X. ISSN   0140-6736. PMID   7913168. S2CID   54397721. During an operation for detached retina the patient showed clear signs of hypoxia...
  7. 1 2 3 4 R v Adomako [1994] UKHL 6 , [1995] 1 AC 171, [1994] UKHL 6, [1995] AC 171, [1994] 3 All ER 79, (1994) 98 Cr App R 282, 98 Cr App R 282, [1994] 3 WLR 288(30 June 1994), UKHL(England and Wales)
  8. ↑ Marshall, S. E. (2011). The Structures of The Criminal Law. OUP Oxford. p. 25. ISBN   978-0-19-964431-5.
  9. ↑ Brahams, D. (November 1990). "Two locum anaesthetists convicted of manslaughter". Anaesthesia. 45 (11): 981–982. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.1990.tb14638.x . ISSN   0003-2409. PMID   2252199. S2CID   34037299. On 26 January 1990 Dr John Adomako was convicted of manslaughter at the Old Bailey after the death of a patient at the Mayday Hospital from cerebral hypoxia in July 1987.
  10. ↑ Dyer, Clare (9 July 1994). "Anaesthetist loses final appeal". BMJ. 309 (6947): 78. doi:10.1136/bmj.309.6947.78. ISSN   0959-8138. S2CID   71495046. The jury found him guilty of manslaughter by a majority of 11 to 1.
  11. 1 2 Teacher, Law (November 2013). "R v Adomako - 1995". Fujairah, UAE: LawTeacher.net. Retrieved 6 January 2023.
  12. ↑ Herring, J. (2018). Criminal Law: Text, Cases, and Materials. Oxford University Press. p. 270. ISBN   9780198811817.
  13. 1 2 "The Legal Framework" (PDF). gosportpanel.independent.gov.uk. December 2014. DPR000036-0001. Retrieved 6 January 2023. The ingredients of the offence of gross negligence manslaughter are set out in R v. Adomako [1995] 1 A.C. 171. The Crown must establish...
  14. ↑ Rudling, R. v, 741Crim, 18(EWCA Crim 7412016)("The critical ingredients of gross negligence manslaughter can be taken from R v Prentice, Adomako and Holloway [1994] QB 302 in this court and Adomako [1995] 1 AC 171, [1994] 99 Crim App R 362 in the House of Lords as well as R v Misra [2005] 1 Cr App R 21.").
  15. ↑ Alghrani, A.; Griffiths, D.; Bennett, R.; Sanders, A.; Ost, S. (2013). Bioethics, Medicine and the Criminal Law. Cambridge University Press. p. 149. ISBN   9781107021532. LCCN   2012027129. They go on to offer an expansion of the four-part Adomako test...
  16. ↑ Baird, N. (2009). Q&A Criminal Law 2009-2010. Taylor & Francis. pp. 42–44. ISBN   9781135242855. [A] problem with the [Adomako] test is that it is circular: the jury must be directed to convict the defendant of a crime if the think his conduct was 'criminal'. In effect, this leaves a question of law to the jury, and, because juries do not give reasons for their decisions, it is impossible to tell what criteria will be applied in an individual case.
  17. ↑ Lodge, Anne (2017). "Gross Negligence Manslaughter on the Cusp: The Unprincipled Privileging of Harm over Culpability". The Journal of Criminal Law. 81 (2): 125–142. doi:10.1177/0022018317694719. ISSN   0022-0183. S2CID   152012083. Indeed, Lord Mackay acknowledged the circularity of the test in Adomako, above n. 22 at 187, but he did not perceive this circularity as 'fatal'.
  18. ↑ "Legislating the Criminal Code Involuntary Manslaughter" (PDF). Law Commission. 4 March 1996. 3.9. Retrieved 14 January 2023. The first problem with this test is that it is circular: the jury must be directed to convict the defendant of a crime if they think his conduct was "criminal". In effect, this leaves a question of law to the jury, and, because juries do not give reasons for their decisions, it is impossible to tell what criteria will be applied in an individual case. This must lead to uncertainty in the law. The CPS has told us that prosecutors find it difficult to judge when to bring a prosecution, defendants have difficulty in deciding how to plead, and there is a danger that juries may bring in inconsistent verdicts on broadly similar evidence.
  19. ↑ Lodge, Anne (April 2017). "Gross Negligence Manslaughter on the Cusp: The Unprincipled Privileging of Harm over Culpability". The Journal of Criminal Law. 81 (2) (published 9 April 2018): 125–142. doi:10.1177/0022018317694719. ISSN   0022-0183. S2CID   152012083. Despite playing a significant role in defining the boundaries of manslaughter, the 'gross negligence' concept is notoriously indeterminate.
  20. ↑ Rex. v. Bateman, 19 , 10-11(Cr App. R81927)("...and the opinion of Lord Hewart C.J., where he said, at pp. 10-11: "In expounding the law to juries on the trial of indictments for manslaughter by negligence, judges have often referred to the distinction between civil and criminal liability for death by negligence. The law of criminal liability for negligence is conveniently explained in that way...").
  21. ↑ Cases on Criminal Law. Bobbs-Merrill. 1923. p. 296 – via CUP Archive. ...In the civil action, if it is proved that A fell short of the standard of reasonable care required by law, it matters not how far he fell short of that standard. The extent of his liability depends not on the degree of negligence but on the amount of damage done. In a criminal court, on the contrary, the amount and degree of negligence are the determining question. There must be mens rea.
  22. ↑ Child, John; Ormerod, David (2017). Smith, Hogan, and Ormerod's Essentials of Criminal Law. Oxford University Press. p. 196. ISBN   978-0-19-878868-3.
  23. ↑ Dobinson, Ian (1 July 2009). "Medical Manslaughter". University of Queensland Law Journal. 28 (1): 107. Two expert witnesses for the prosecution described the defendant's standard of care as 'abysmal' and a 'gross dereliction of care'.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.