Gross Negligence Manslaughter - Summary 2
R
v Adomako (1994) is a significant case as far as gross negligence
manslaughter is concerned. According to the facts the defendant an anesthetist
failed to monitor the oxygen pipes during a surgery and as a result the pipes
got disconnected and the patient died. It was obvious that if the anesthetist
was keeping an eye on the pipes he would have been able to prevent the death.
The
defendant was convicted on first instance. The defense successfully appealed
and the court of appeal quashed the conviction but the House of Lords on
further appeal by the prosecution upheld the conviction.
The
House of Lords applied the duty of care principle enunciated by Lord Atkins in
the landmark civil case (tort) of Donoghue v Stevenson (1932).
The
rule that you are to love thy neighbor (Matthew 22:39) becomes in law you must
not injure your neighbor. In order to obtain a conviction, the prosecution must
establish duty, breach, causation and a fourth element.
The
elements that are to be established are as follows: -
1. The
defendant must owe the victim a duty of care
2. The
defendant must have breached that duty of care
3. The
breach of the duty must have caused the death of the victim and
4. The
conduct of the defendant was so bad (gross) that a crime could easily be
inferred.
Gross
negligence is a strict liability offence and the defendant can be convicted
without establishing the mental element or mens rea. In A-G’s ref no 2 of 1999
(2000) it was decided that the defendant can be convicted for gross negligence
manslaughter without taking into account his state of mind, though it is easier
to do so if it can be established that he was reckless.
In
the absence of subjective recklessness, in order to determine if the defendant
was reckless or otherwise, the test that is to be used is the objective test or
the reasonable man’s test see R v DPP ex parte Jones (2000).
Copyright
© 2019 by Dyarne Ward
Comments
Post a Comment