R v Adomako [1995]

1. Facts:

• During an eye operation, an oxygen pipe became disconnected, leading to the patient’s death.

• The defendant (D), an anaesthetist, was found to have breached their duty of care, which was deemed grossly negligent.

2. Outcome:

• D was convicted of gross negligence manslaughter by a majority verdict of 11 to 1.

• The conviction was based on the finding that D's breach of duty was so severe it justified a criminal conviction.

3. Impact and Analysis:

Lord Mackay Test:

• Duty of Care: D owed a duty of care to the patient.

• Objective Test: The standard is objective, similar to that in tort law.

• Breach and Causation: There was a breach of duty that caused the patient's death.

• Gross Negligence: The breach was of such a degree that it was considered grossly negligent, justifying a criminal conviction.

• Criticisms:

◦ The test for gross negligence has been criticised as circular and somewhat vague. Critics argue that it defines gross negligence as being simply 'sufficiently negligent to deserve a conviction,' which can be seen as tautological.

◦ Scholars like Kazarian, Griffiths, and Brazier describe the concept of grossness as 'elusive,' suggesting that the standard is difficult to apply consistently and may lead to subjective interpretations.