R v Adomako [1995] 1 A.C. 171, UKHL 6 1994
Citation:R v Adomako [1995] 1 A.C. 171, UKHL 6 1994
Rule of thumb:Can a drastic failure to supervise a medical process be a crime? Yes, if the failure to supervise the medical process is particularly bad, this can be a crime.
Rule of thumb:What is the general test for criminality? Ultimately there has to be a mental consideration of considering whether the behaviour is criminal in the full circumstances of the case.
Background facts:
The facts of this case were that the defendant was an anaesthetist. During the process of an eye operation, during which Adomako was also responsible for supervising the operation generally, a tube connecting the patient to a ventilator became disconnected. Adomako was not concentrating at this stage and never noticed the tube popping out, and the failure to notice this lasted so long that the patient died. Adomako was charged with involuntary manslaughter/culpable homicide.
Parties argued:
Adomako argued that in these circumstances when he had just done his job badly, then he should not be able to be prosecuted for this.
Judgment:
The Court affirmed that gross negligence in failing to supervise & check can be a criminal offence, particularly in the medical healthcare sector where are in a particularly vulnerable position. The Court affirmed that failure to check on tubes being connected to a patient during an operation was not just basic medical negligence, but gross medical negligence. The Court affirmed that where someone has been grossly negligent then they can be legally prosecuted for this and they have no inherent right to stop a prosecution taking place in these circumstances. The Court then stated that the general question for the jury to ask was to consider all the circumstances and decide that if they felt that the conduct of the accused’s lack of supervision reached the level beyond gross negligence of the criminal standard of recklessness. Ultimately, Adomako’s conviction was upheld and he was jailed for involuntary manslaughter.
Ratio-decidendi:
‘was the defendant’s conduct so bad in all the circumstances that it ought to amount to criminal?’
Warning: This is not professional legal advice. This is not professional legal education advice. Please obtain professional guidance before embarking on any legal course of action. This is just an interpretation of a Judgment by persons of legal insight & varying levels of legal specialism, experience & expertise. Please read the Judgment yourself and form your own interpretation of it with professional assistance.