R v Adomako

The House of Lords affirmed the Court of Appeal and upheld the conviction for manslaughter by gross negligence. The court held that the established gross negligence test, as expounded in Rex v Bateman and Andrews v Director of Public Prosecutions, remains the appropriate test for involuntary manslaughter arising from a breach of duty. It was not necessary to direct the jury with the detailed definition of 'recklessness' given in R v Lawrence, although the trial judge may use the word 'reckless' in its ordinary meaning if appropriate. The decision emphasises that juries must decide whether the defendant's breach of duty was so bad, in all the circumstances and having regard to the risk of death, as to be criminal.

Background and facts:

• The appellant, an anaesthetist, was convicted of manslaughter following the death of a patient after an endotracheal tube became disconnected during an eye operation. The disconnection occurred at about 11:05 a.m.; the anaesthetist did not discover it and cardiac arrest followed. The appellant conceded negligence at trial but argued that his negligence was not criminal.
• Experts for the prosecution described the standard of care as 'abysmal' and said a competent anaesthetist should have recognised disconnection within seconds. The defence expert acknowledged the failure but pointed to possible distracting concurrent events and psychological factors.

Procedural posture:

• The jury convicted by 11 to 1. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal but certified a point of law of general public importance concerning the correct test for manslaughter by criminal negligence not involving driving: whether the gross negligence test alone is sufficient without reference to the definition of recklessness in R v Lawrence. The Court of Appeal's decision was reported at [1994] Q.B. 302.
• The appellant obtained leave to appeal to the House of Lords. The House of Lords heard argument and referred to authorities including Rex v Bateman, Andrews v DPP, R v Lawrence and R v Seymour.

Issues framed by the court:

1. What is the correct legal test for involuntary manslaughter by breach of duty not involving driving?
2. Whether a jury direction adopting the gross negligence test (Bateman/Andrews approach) is sufficient, or whether the definition of recklessness in Lawrence must be given.

Court’s reasoning and conclusion:

• The Law Lords reviewed authority and concluded that the Bateman/Andrews formulation provides a satisfactory basis: first establish duty, then breach causing death, and finally whether the breach amounts to gross negligence such that it should be characterised as a crime.
• The court rejected a requirement to adopt the Lawrence formulation in non-driving breach-of-duty cases; Lawrence’s detailed definition of recklessness is unnecessary and may be unduly elaborate for many cases. However, trial judges remain free to use the word 'reckless' in its ordinary sense if appropriate.
• The House of Lords found the trial judge’s summing up to be clear and appropriate for jury comprehension and therefore dismissed the appeal, answering the certified question in favour of the gross negligence test.

Appeal dismissed. The House of Lords affirmed the Court of Appeal: in manslaughter by criminal negligence involving a breach of duty the gross negligence test (following Rex v Bateman and Andrews v DPP) is sufficient; it is not necessary to direct the jury with the detailed definition of 'recklessness' in R v Lawrence, although a judge may use 'reckless' in its ordinary meaning if appropriate.

Conviction after jury trial (trial court). Appeal to the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) dismissed (reported at [1994] Q.B. 302); a point of law certified (15 June 1993). Leave to appeal to the House of Lords granted; House of Lords dismissed the appeal on 30 June 1994 ([1994] UKHL 6).