R v Adomako - case summary PDF

Preview

Summary

case summary ...

Description

R v Adomako The defendant, an anaesthetist, was acting as such during an eye operation, which involved paralysing the patient, when a tube became disconnected from a ventilator. The patient suffered a cardiac arrest and subsequently died. The defendant was convicted of the manslaughter of the patient by breach of duty CoA dismissed Appeal. HoL said the same on the question of the true legal basis of involuntary manslaughter by breach of duty n cases of manslaughter by criminal negligence involving a breach of duty the ordinary principles of the law of negligence applied to ascertain whether the defendant had been in breach of a duty of care towards the victim once it had been established there have been a breach of duty of care, whether that caused the death of the victim, and if so was it gross negligence?

alleged that the appellant was guilty of gross negligence in failing to notice or respond appropriately to obvious signs that a disconnection had occurred and that the patient had ceased to breathe. the prosecution alleged that the appellant had noticed but failed to understand the correct significance ofthe fact that during this period the patient's pulse had dropped and the patient's blood pressure had dropped. Professor Payne described the standard of care as "abysmal" while Professor Adams stated that in his view a competent anaesthetist should have recognised °the signs of disconnection within 15 seconds and that the appellant's conduct amounted to "a gross dereliction of care." It had never occurredto him that a disconnection had taken place. "given thatDr. Adomako misled himself the efforts he made were not unreasonable." in cases of manslaughter by criminal negligence not involving driving but involving a breach of duty is it a sufficient direction to the jury to adopt the gross negligence test .The Court of Appeal held that except in cases of motor manslaughter the ingredients

which had to be proved to establish an offence of involuntary manslaughter by breach of duty were the existence of the duty, a breach of the duty which had caused death and gross negligence which the jury considered to justify a criminal conviction 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.

can only convict them criminally if, in your judgment, they fall below the standard of skill which is the least qualification which any doctor should have. You should only convict a doctor of causing a death E by negligence. if you think he did something which no reasonably skilled doctor should have

done."

dismissing D's appeal, that the question whether D's acts or omissions were so bad as to be criminal having regard to the risk of death involved was one for the jury and it was not appropriate to interfere with their decision...