R v Adomako

On 4 January 1987, Alan Loveland, a thirty-three-year-old man, underwent an eye operation for detached retina. At 9:45 am, anaesthesia and paralysis were induced by the intravenous administration of drugs and an endotracheal tube was inserted to enable the patient to breathe with the aid of a mechanical ventilator. It was the eye surgeon who noticed that the ventilator was disconnected and this was after resuscitation had commenced. Mr Adomako appealed his conviction challenging the basis that a breach of duty should not have amounted to involuntary manslaughter, however, his conviction was upheld by the House of Lords. ==Judgment==

Mr Adomako's appeal was dismissed. Adomako was under a duty to act as a reasonable anaesthetist. The House of Lords in R v Adomako clarified the requisite elements for gross negligence manslaughter at common law with a four-part test which became known as the Adomako test: Lord Mackay of Clashfern expanded on how the test for involuntary manslaughter was formulated: ==Circularity of the Adomako test==

The application of the test for gross negligence manslaughter in Adomako has been identified as involving an element of circularity. Lord Mackay conceded that the formulation of the test involved a circularity element but that this was not fatal to this test being the right one in order to identify how far the defendant's "conduct must depart from accepted standards to be characterised as criminal". The circularity problem is that the jury must be directed to convict the defendant if they, the jury, believe the conduct of the defendant was "criminal". This, however, leaves the burden of a question of law to be decided by the jury where they would not usually be expected to supply reasons for their verdicts which, in turn, leads to the problem of not being able to readily identify which criteria the jury applied for their determination in a certain case. == Grossness element ==

The determination of the element of "grossness" in negligence can be variable and inexact. In a criminal court, it must be established that there is mens rea, where the extent of the defendant's liability depends on the amount of damage done and the degree of negligence. It is for the jury to examine the defendant's conduct in order to determine whether the element of "grossness" is sufficiently serious that it amounts to a criminal offence and would therefore warrant criminal liability for manslaughter. In the case of Adomako, the breach of duty was so serious that the appellant's conduct amounted to "a gross dereliction of care". == See also ==