Waiting for answer This question has not been answered yet. You can hire a professional tutor to get the answer.
I need help creating a thesis and an outline on R v Adomako, Law case. Prepare this assignment according to the guidelines found in the APA Style Guide. An abstract is required.
I need help creating a thesis and an outline on R v Adomako, Law case. Prepare this assignment according to the guidelines found in the APA Style Guide. An abstract is required. 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  19 Cr.App.R.8 and Andrews v Director of Public Prosecutions  A.C.576. ignoring drivers carelessness as detailed in R v Lawrence (Stephen)  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  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  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  A.C.