## Facts

- The defendant, an anaesthetist, failed to notice a disconnected ventilator tube during surgery.
- This omission resulted in the patient’s death due to lack of oxygen.
- The defendant was charged with gross negligence manslaughter.
- The House of Lords considered whether the defendant’s conduct amounted to gross negligence sufficient for criminal liability.

## Issues

1. Whether a duty of care existed between the defendant and the victim in the circumstances.
2. Whether the defendant breached that duty according to the objective standard of a reasonable person.
3. Whether the breach caused the victim's death.
4. Whether the breach amounted to gross negligence, thus justifying criminal liability for manslaughter.

## Decision

- The House of Lords held that the ordinary principles of negligence in tort law apply to gross negligence manslaughter, including establishing duty, breach, and causation.
- It affirmed that only conduct amounting to gross negligence, rather than mere carelessness, can be criminally liable.
- The Court determined that assessing whether negligence is ‘gross’ is a matter for the jury, who must consider both the seriousness of the breach and the risk of death.
- The jury is to apply a common-sense, moral judgment in deciding whether the defendant’s conduct was sufficiently reprehensible for criminal conviction.

## Legal Principles

- Gross negligence manslaughter requires proof of (i) duty of care, (ii) breach of duty, (iii) causation of death, and (iv) grossness in negligence that warrants criminal conviction.
- The duty of care is determined in accordance with negligence principles from tort law.
- Breach is measured against the objective standard of a reasonable person in the defendant’s position.
- Causation must be established by showing the breach was a substantial and operative cause of death.
- Grossness imports a significant departure from the reasonable standard, with the jury applying a moral evaluation.
- The test for gross negligence manslaughter is sufficiently certain and is properly left to the fact-finding role of the jury.

## Conclusion

R v Adomako [1995] 1 AC 171 clarified the elements for gross negligence manslaughter, aligning them with tortious negligence but requiring a gross breach, with the determination of ‘grossness’ left to the jury’s moral judgment, thereby setting a durable standard for criminal liability arising from negligent conduct causing death.


R v Adomako [1995] 1 AC 171 (HL)