Ratio Decidendi
Gross negligence manslaughter is established where: (1) the defendant owed a duty of care to the deceased; (2) the defendant breached that duty; (3) the breach caused the death; and (4) the negligence was so gross as to be characterised as criminal. The question of whether negligence is 'gross' is for the jury.
Hechos
Dr Adomako was an anaesthetist responsible for a patient during an eye operation. During the operation, a tube supplying oxygen to the patient became disconnected. Dr Adomako failed to notice the disconnection for over four minutes, despite alarm signals. The patient suffered a cardiac arrest and died six months later. Expert evidence was that a competent anaesthetist would have noticed the disconnection within 15 seconds.
Resumen de la sentencia
The House of Lords upheld the conviction for gross negligence manslaughter. Lord Mackay LC held that the ordinary principles of the law of negligence apply to establish the duty and breach elements. The jury must then consider whether the breach of duty was so bad as to amount to criminal conduct — whether it was truly exceptionally bad and showed such disregard for the life and safety of others as to amount to a crime. The test is circular but deliberately so: the jury must apply the standard of the reasonable person to determine whether the negligence was criminal.
Citas clave
"The jury should be directed that they must be sure that the negligence of the accused went beyond a mere matter of compensation between subjects and showed such disregard for the life and safety of others as to amount to a crime against the state and conduct deserving punishment."
— Lord Mackay LC
Tratamiento posterior
The leading and current authority on gross negligence manslaughter in English law.
Applied in R v Misra and Srivastava [2004] where the Court of Appeal rejected a challenge that the Adomako test was too uncertain to comply with Article 7 ECHR.