R V Adomako Case Study

Into this assignment i will be critically analysing the case and judgement of R v Adomako (1994) the case is a matter of criminal law and Lord Mackay was the lead judge who sat on the case. in R v Adomako the defendant ( John Ajare Adomako) was an anaesthetist who was in charge of a patient during an eye operation at the Mayday Hospital, Croydon on 4th January 1987. During the operation a pipe became disconnected, the appellant failed to notice which resulted in the death of the patient. Adomako was therefore found guilty of gross negligence manslaughter.
Gross Negligence Manslaughter is a form of involuntary manslaughter under the criminal law in the English legislative system, R v Adomako established 3 elements that must be proven for a person to be guilty of Gross Negligence Manslaughter. Firstly it must be proven that there was a duty of care. A duty of care is defined as an legal obligation to safeguard others from harm while they are in your care. It must therefore be proven that Adomako owed a duty of care to his patient, as Adomko was a professional anaesthetist he did in fact owe his patient a duty of care and that duty would be higher than that of a reasonable person (cited by Lord Hewart CJ). Secondly the duty of care needs to be …show more content…
R v Adomako has become a precedent as Lord Makay set out three elements that must be proven for the defendant to be convicted of gross negligence manslaghter. The precedent laid down in R v Adomako has became binding and must be followed in cases of similar circumstances. The case of Adomako has also been proven to be one of great ….. as like the mischief rule the case help to establish the gaps in the law of involuntarily manslaughter and helped to rectify it. The case of R v Adomako has since became the leading case in regards to involuntary