R v Adomako [1995] 1 AC 171

Court: House of Lords

Facts: The defendant (D) was an anaesthetist responsible for a patient undergoing surgery. During the procedure, a crucial oxygen tube became disconnected, but D failed to notice this for several minutes. As a result, the patient suffered a cardiac arrest and died. D was charged with gross negligence manslaughter. The issue before the court was whether D's conduct amounted to gross negligence sufficient to establish criminal liability.

Held: D was convicted of gross negligence manslaughter. The House of Lords held that gross negligence manslaughter requires four key elements: (1) the existence of a duty of care owed by D to the victim, (2) a breach of that duty, (3) that the breach caused death, and (4) that the breach was so grossly negligent as to justify criminal punishment. The court emphasized that D's failure to act in accordance with the standards expected of a competent anaesthetist was a significant factor in determining gross negligence.

💡Levelup: R v Adomako is a leading case on gross negligence manslaughter and is crucial for outlining the requirements for such a charge. The decision established that gross negligence is objectively assessed, based on whether D's conduct departed so far from the standard of care expected of a reasonable person in their position that it warrants criminal liability. This case remains the cornerstone for prosecutions involving gross negligence in situations involving a breach of professional or public duties.