Crime XXXXXXII - Involuntary Manslaughter VIII
Medical
staff for example aestheticians can be convicted of manslaughter if they are
found to be grossly negligent in their work and if their negligence has led to
the death of a patient.
In
R v Adomako (1994) the accused was an aesthetician who was in charge of
administering anesthetics during an operation. While in surgery an oxygen pipe
got disconnected and the patient died from the resulting complications. The
accused was charged and convicted for manslaughter. The accused appealed.
The
Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction but the House of Lords, on further
appeal, upheld the conviction on the grounds that the cause of death was not
recklessness but gross negligence in breach of a duty.
R
v OLL Ltd (1994) (also known as the Lime Bay canoe disaster) (Corporate
Manslaughter) the company sent a group of students into the sea, during rough
weather, when conditions were harsher than normal, and as a result the canoe
capsized and four of the students drowned. The defendant, the managing director
of the company was charged and convicted of corporate manslaughter.
In
this instance it was possible to narrow down the “controlling mind” and the
mishap would not have taken place had it not been for the actions or the
inactions of the controlling mind and it implies that the person in charge or
the controlling mind could have prevented the mishap if he or she so desired.
It
is easier to narrow down the controlling mind in smaller companies where the
decision is made by a single person as opposed to large corporations where more
than one person is involved in the decision-making process.
In
R v Henderson (1995) (Corporate Manslaughter), two boats, the Marchioness and
the Bowbelle collided on the River Thames and the collision resulted in
substantial loss of life.
An
inquiry was held after the accident and the cause of the accident was
determined to be a failure by the boat crews to keep an adequate lookout. Upon
further examination the prosecution decided that there was sufficient evidence
to bring a charge of manslaughter.
The
case went to trial and two juries failed to reach a verdict or find sufficient
grounds to convict the defendant.
· It might be worth, for the sake of
argument, in order to narrow down the controlling mind, to ask the question who
among all those that were implicated could have stopped or prevented the
accident and then ask: -
1. If
that person had sufficient authority to prevent the accident and
2. If
the accident would have occurred regardless of whether that person took the
necessary steps to prevent the accident or otherwise.
Copyright
© 2019 by Dyarne Ward
Comments
Post a Comment