Ratio Decidendi
Gross negligence manslaughter is committed where: (1) the defendant owed the deceased a duty of care under the ordinary common-law principles of negligence; (2) the defendant breached that duty; (3) the breach caused the death of the victim; and (4) the breach was so gross — that is, so far below the standard reasonably expected — that it ought, in the jury's judgment, to be characterised as a crime rather than a mere civil wrong. The question whether the negligence was 'gross' is one for the jury, applying the ordinary objective standard of a reasonably competent person carrying out the defendant's role; recklessness in the Caldwell sense is not required, nor is any subjective awareness of risk. The Adomako test replaced the recklessness-based formulation in R v Seymour [1983] 2 AC 493 for non-motor manslaughter.
Fakty
Dr Adomako, a senior anaesthetist, was responsible for the anaesthesia of a patient undergoing routine eye surgery at the Mayday Hospital in Croydon. During the procedure the endotracheal tube supplying oxygen to the patient became disconnected. The disconnection went undetected for approximately four-and-a-half minutes despite a low-pressure alarm and changes in the patient's vital signs. By the time Dr Adomako noticed something was wrong and re-connected the tube, the patient had suffered a cardiac arrest and irreversible brain damage. The patient died approximately six months later. Expert evidence at trial established that a competent anaesthetist would have detected the disconnection within 15 seconds, and that Dr Adomako's failures (failing to notice the alarm, failing to check the integrity of the breathing circuit, failing to perform basic patient observation) amounted to a level of incompetence far below that expected of a reasonably competent anaesthetist. Dr Adomako was convicted of gross negligence manslaughter at first instance. The Court of Appeal (Lord Taylor CJ) dismissed his appeal and certified a question of general public importance for the House of Lords.
Podsumowanie orzeczenia
The House of Lords (Lord Mackay of Clashfern LC delivering the only reasoned speech, with which Lords Keith, Goff, Browne-Wilkinson and Woolf concurred) unanimously dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction. Lord Mackay restated the elements of gross negligence manslaughter and made clear that the appropriate test was the ordinary principles of the law of negligence — supplemented by the requirement that, to convict, the jury must conclude that the negligence went so far beyond what was acceptable that it ought to be branded as criminal. He rejected attempts to reformulate the offence in terms of recklessness (as in Seymour), holding that gross negligence and recklessness are distinct concepts and that the older common-law approach to gross negligence manslaughter should be reinstated. Lord Mackay declined to lay down a more detailed direction on what 'gross' meant, accepting that the test had a degree of circularity but emphasising that the jury are uniquely well placed to apply community standards of acceptable risk-taking in a particular professional context. The decision swept away the Seymour recklessness formulation and re-established Adomako gross negligence manslaughter as the leading category of involuntary manslaughter outside the unlawful act / constructive manslaughter route. The decision has shaped subsequent prosecutions of healthcare professionals, transport operators, and (via the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007) corporations and senior managers.
Kluczowe cytaty
"The ordinary principles of the law of negligence apply to ascertain whether or not the defendant has been in breach of a duty of care towards the victim who has died. If such breach of duty is established the next question is whether that breach of duty caused the death of the victim. If so, the jury must go on to consider whether that breach of duty should be characterised as gross negligence and therefore as a crime."
— Lord Mackay LC at 187
"The jury should be directed that they must be sure that the negligence of the accused went beyond a mere matter of compensation between subjects and showed such disregard for the life and safety of others as to amount to a crime against the State and conduct deserving punishment."
— Lord Mackay LC at 187
"It is true that to a certain extent this involves an element of circularity, but in this branch of the law I do not believe that is fatal to its being correct as a test of how far conduct must depart from accepted standards to be characterised as criminal."
— Lord Mackay LC at 187
Późniejsze zastosowanie
Adomako is the current and leading authority on gross negligence manslaughter in England and Wales. Every modern direction to the jury follows the Lord Mackay formulation.
In R v Misra and Srivastava [2004] EWCA Crim 2375 the Court of Appeal (Judge LJ) rejected a challenge that the test was so vague as to violate Article 7 ECHR, holding that the requirement of gross negligence was sufficiently certain and that the jury's role was a proper one.
In R v Rudling [2016] EWCA Crim 741 and R v Sellu [2016] EWCA Crim 1716 the Court of Appeal emphasised the need for an 'obvious and serious' risk of death (not merely of harm) at the time of the breach — clarifying the high threshold of foreseeability before gross negligence can be made out, particularly in cases involving medical decision-making.
Adomako forms the underlying common-law standard against which the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 operates: the gross-breach test under s.1(4)(b) of the 2007 Act was deliberately drawn from Adomako, and applies the same notion of conduct falling far below what could reasonably have been expected.
In R v Broughton [2020] EWCA Crim 1093 the Court of Appeal applied Adomako to a music-festival drug-supply death, emphasising that the duty of care must be one that the criminal law recognises and that causation must be established to the criminal standard.
What To Do Next
Step-by-Step Guides
Know Your Rights
Common Scenarios
Get Professional Help