The Criminal Justice System and Health Care - Essay Example

?The case of R. v Adamako case was decided in the House of Lords by a bench composed of Lords Clashfern, Keith of Kinkel, Goff of Chieveley, Browne-Wilkinson and Woolf. This case discussed the offence of involuntary manslaughter whereby a medical practitioner who was supposed to administer anaesthesia to a patient was accused of being negligent in his duties. The appellant while in his duties in treating a patient with an eye ailment failed to notice that an oxygen pipe he had connected during an eye operation had been disconnected resulting in the death of the patient. The jury found him guilty of the offence of manslaughter after which he appealed and the Court of Appeal after which he moved to the House of Lords dismissed the case. The Court of Appeal discussed the tests on involuntary manslaughter when related with questions of gross negligence in dismissing the case and upholding a conviction. The court was faced with confirming that the violation of the duty of care resulted into the death of the victim. It was also important to find out whether the breach of the duty resulted to the death thus justifying a criminal conviction. The appeal was thus dismissed as it failed to convince the judges of the Court of Appeal to have satisfied the test of gross negligence in manslaughter cases (Erin and Ost 2007, p.19). The House of Lords was to ascertain what established criminal negligence, whether it was by gross negligence among drivers, as claimed in R v Bateman [1925] 19 Cr.App.R.8 and Andrews v Director of Public Prosecutions [1937] A.C.576; ignoring drivers carelessness as detailed in R v Lawrence (Stephen) [1982] A.C.510, or analyse the situation by its facts (Herring 2012, p.193). The House of Lords upheld the conviction of the appellant for the offence of manslaughter stating that the law as made in the case of R v Seymor [1983] 2 A.C.493 was not relevant to the present case as the law it was found on been changed by the Road Traffic Act of 1991 that applied presently. The rider to this is that the trial judge is at liberty to use the word according to its liberal or literal meaning only when he thinks it as appropriate to the case beforehand. From this case, the House of Lords established the examination for serious negligence in manslaughter suitcases committed though not voluntary, Lord Mackay, LC in construing this in involuntary manslaughter cases stated that the usual test of negligence applied that which constituted the breach of duty that has resulted in harm or injury (Halpin 2004, p.93). Therefore, if a breach occurred that resulted in the death of the victim, the jury would be required to find out if the gross negligence resulted in the crime of manslaughter. In his argument, this depends must depend on the seriousness of the violation of the duty committed by a defendant in the course of his duties. In the present case, what the duty is supposed to care about is whether the conduct of the defendant was far from the standard of care expected of him and that it resulted in the death of a patient. Only if the departure was far from the expectation would the act or omission be adjudged as criminal. Using R v Bateman [1925] 19 Cr.App.R.8 as a basis for Lord Mackay while quoting Lord Hewart, CJ stated that as laid down in manslaughter cases if a person holds a position of consultancy, possesses special skills and knowledge and acts on behalf of a patient he should exercise due caution. Therefore a patient who willingly submits to the direction and treatment offered by a specialist is owed a duty of care that involves the exercise of skill and knowledge, care and diligence including caution in the provision of the medical care. In finding a conviction or not, the jury is therefore required to exercise utmost care through reasonable and a fair standard of care that takes consideration of the competence of the professional involved. Lord Atkin in formulating recklessness and gross negligence cases in involuntary manslaughter cases in Andrews v Director of Public Prosecutions [1937] A.C.576 stated that in criminal law, it was required that a higher degree of negligence must be proved for the manslaughter be classified as a felony. In the present case, it would be described as recklessness whereby an accused though aware of the impending risk and its effect became negligent such that he would not take actions to avoid it. Therefore, the conviction of Adamako would hold based on the findings in R. v Bateman [1925] 19 Cr.App.R.8 Andrews v Director of Public Prosecutions [1937] A.C.576 in that the medical practitioner was grossly negligent in his actions and it was right to convict him with the offence of manslaughter even though it was involuntary (Molan 2001, p.732). The jury should therefore be properly informed to find a person guilty of gross negligence for violating a duty placed on him that he fails to perform with knowledge that it may put another person at risk resulting into death. This case therefore looked at the criminal offence of involuntary manslaughter not from an intention to kill but from the angle that a reckless negligent act of one person resulted into the death of another person of whom he should be held liable. As already stated, the Adamako case laid the basis of gross negligence in manslaughter cases. Whereby it was found that it is a form of involuntary manslaughter whereby a defendant not out of his own free will causes death to another person and therefore lacks the intention to kill or what is known in legal terms as mens rea of murder. This is in contrast from constructive manslaughter whereby a defendant may commit an act that results into the death of another person, as gross negligence claims in involuntary manslaughter do not require any proof of unlawful acts. It only requires proof of negligence through either acts or omission that results into the death of another person. The tenets therefore to be proved in gross negligence claims resulting in involuntary manslaughter as restated in the Adamako case is therefore that a duty of care was owed to the victim, a duty that has been breached. Furthermore, it must be ascertained that the violation of duty of care that was due to the victim led to his death, and the jury must also be convinced that the conduct of the defendant was negligent at all circumstances such that the jury is convinced that a crime was committed. Therefore, it is important that in cases of involuntary manslaughter that involve a breach a duty of care, the question of how far the professional departed from the expected standard of care expected of him for the act to be classified as criminal in nature depended on the degree that caused the death that must be determined by the jury. This opinion formed the decision of the jury to convict him for the offence of involuntary manslaughter by a majority of eleven to one. This was confirmed by the decision of the House of Lords which unanimously found him grossly negligent resulting in the offence of involuntary manslaughter. Negligence has the open meaning of failure to exercise due care but it should not be assumed that failing to exercise due care could result into manslaughter. For manslaughter cases to stand, a higher degree of proof of negligence must be proved for the jury to determine whether it is enough to convict a person for the crime of manslaughter. Therefore, the jury must be appropriately directed to find that the accused, defendant or the appellant violated a duty of care that should have accrued to a victim, and the breach of that duty led to the death of the victim. The violation must also be negligent on the face of it to result into a criminal act. As stated by Lord Mackay that for a conviction to be obtained, it would depend on how serious or grave the violation of the duty by the defendant in its duties. The jury must therefore be sure that it has confirmed that the defendant and his conduct were not in tandem with the expected standard of care that he should exercise in his career. Failure to adhere to these standards of care that results in death makes the defendant guilty of the criminal act of involuntary manslaughter (Mothersole and Ridley 1999, P.243). The Adamako case has however been criticized for amalgamating the civil law concepts that determine negligence and duty of care that should be far from application in criminal cases. Both legal practitioners therefore propose it and legal scholars that a new test should be put in place for determining gross negligence manslaughter cases committed involuntarily. It is also criticized in the sense that it leaves a weighty decision at the hands of the jury who in most cases do not give reasons for finding a person culpable of the offence of manslaughter. It also does not have any clear definition under what extent a person can be said to have omitted acting in the desired manner. References Erin, C.A. and Ost, S., 2007. The Criminal Justice System and Health Care. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Halpin, A., 2004. Definition in the criminal law. Oxford, Hart. Herring, J., 2012. Criminal law: text, cases and materials. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Molan, M.T., 2001. Sourcebook on Criminal Law. London: Routledge. Mothersole, B. and Ridley, A., 1999. A-Level Law in Action. Stamford: Cengage Learning. Read More