A doctor was convicted of manslaughter arising out of his treatment of a woman in childbirth. Lord Hewart CJ discussed the law governing manslaughter by negligence, which required, as the element distinguishing criminal from civil liability, proof of ‘gross negligence’, saying: ‘In expounding to juries on the trial of indictments for manslaughter by negligence, judge have often referred to the distinction between civil and criminal liability for death by negligence. The law of criminal liability for negligence is conveniently explained in that way. If A has caused the death of B by alleged negligence, then, in order to establish civil liability, the plaintiff must prove (in addition to pecuniary loss caused by death) that A owed a duty to B to take care, that that duty was not discharged, and that the default caused the death of B. To convict A of manslaughter, the prosecutor must prove the three things above mentioned and must satisfy the jury, in addition, that A’s negligence amounted to a crime. In the civil action if it is proved that A fell short of the standard of reasonable care required by law, it matters not how far he fell short of that standard. The extent of his liabiliity depends not on the degree of negligence, but on the amount of damage done. In a criminal Court, on the contrary, the amount and degree of negligence are the determining question. There must be mens rea.’ and
‘In explaining to juries the test which they should apply to determine whether the negligence, in the particular case, amounted or did not amount to a crime, judges have used many epithets, such as ‘culpable’, ‘criminal’, ‘gross’, ‘wicked’, ‘clear’, ‘complete’. But, whatever epithet be used and whether an epithet be used or not, in order to establish criminal liability the facts must be such that, in the opinion of the jury, the negligence of the accused went beyond a mere matter of compensation between subjects and showed such disregard for the life and safety of others as to amount to a crime against the State and conduct deserving punishment.’
‘The law as laid down in these cases may be thus summarised: If a person holds himself out as possessing special skill and knowledge and he is consulted, as possessing such skill and knowledge, by or on behalf of a patient, he owes a duty to the patient to use due caution in undertaking the treatment. If he accepts the responsibility and undertakes the treatment and the patient submits to his discretion and treatment accordingly, he owes a duty to the patient to use diligence, care, knowledge, skill and caution in administering the treatment. No contractual relation is necessary, nor is it necessary that the service be rendered for reward. It is for the judge to direct the jury what standard to apply and for the jury to say whether that standard has been reached. The jury should not exact the highest, or a very high, standard, nor should they be content with a very low standard. The law requires a fair and reasonable standard of care and competence be reached in all the matters above mentioned.’
Lord Hewart CJ
(1925) 19 Cr App R 8
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Brown v The Queen (Jamaica) PC 13-Apr-2005
A police officer appealed against his conviction for manslaughter after being involved in a road traffic accident. Two were killed. The policemen complained as to the direction given on gross negligence manslaughter.
Held: Adomako could not . .
Explained – Andrews v Director of Public Prosecutions HL 22-Apr-1937
The defendant was accused of manslaughter in a road traffic case.
Held: The House sought a simple definition of manslaughter which would be applicable for road traffic cases. Lord Atkin said: ‘My Lords, of all crimes manslaughter appears to . .
Approved – Regina v Shulman, Regina v Prentice, Regina v Adomako; Regina v Holloway HL 1-Jul-1994
An anaesthetist failed to observe an operation properly, and did not notice that a tube had become disconnected from a ventilator. The patient suffered a cardiac arrest and died, and the defendant was convicted of manslaughter, being guilty of gross . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Crime
Leading Case
Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.226128