R v Adomako
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Date | 1994 |
| Year | 1994 |
| Court | Central Criminal Court |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
3 cases
-
Burns v The Queen
......The existence and breach of such a duty is a necessary condition of a finding of criminal negligence 51 . Lord Atkin in Andrews v Director of Public Prosecutions 52 equated negligence with ‘the omission of a duty to take care.’ In R v Adomako 53 , Lord Mackay of Clashfern LC observed that ‘the ordinary principles of the law of negligence apply to ascertain whether or not the defendant has been in breach of a duty of care towards the victim who has died.’ The question that follows is whether the breach of duty caused the death of the ......
-
Re Oliver, inquest into death of Ojo Moyo
......This is eminently a jury question to decide whether, having regard to the risk of death involved, HCL's conduct was so bad in all the circumstances as to amount to a criminal omission: R v. Adomako [1995] 1 A.C. 171 following R v. Bateman 19 Cr. App. R. 8 and Andrews v. DPP [1937] A.C. 576 . . 150 On the evidence before this court I find that there are sufficient grounds for concluding that HCL's omissions were grossly negligent and consequentially criminal. ......
-
Bowen v R
...... 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 of punishment.” In Adomako 31 Lord Mackay clarified that the negligence the prosecution must prove to establish criminal liability must be so serious as to reach the level of ‘gross’. In directing a jury a judge may use the epithet ‘reckless’, in its ordinary as opposed to legal sense, to convey the degree of ......