R v Adomako  1 AC 187.Watch this thread
1. I was bit confused as to how mens rea was used in this case. According to the case, there must be mens rea which will help to determine the degree of negligence within criminal court, but there wasn't much mentioned about the mens rea element. But then Lord Atkin said that he does not find mens rea helpful in distinguishing the degree of negligence. So does that mean that mens rea isn't an important element in gross negligence manslaughter cases?
2. I am not too sure if the foreseeability to the risk of harm is an important element in determining whether or not the defendant is guilty. I know that there are 3 bits which the prosecution has to satisfy to the jury: duty owed to the victim, a breach of that duty, and the breach has resulted in the death of the victim. But I am just unsure about the foreseeability part.
Hope someone can help me