07.16.10
Dr Patel guilty of manslaughter and grievous bodily harm
In what circumstances should the negligence of a surgeon be regarded as criminal?
This question was answered on 30 June 2010 after six and a half days of deliberation by the 12 members (six men and six women) of the jury in the Brisbane Supreme Court trial of former Bundaberg Hospital surgeon, Jayant Patel. As the jury’s verdicts of guilty on three manslaughter charges (75 year old Mervyn Morris, 77 year old Gerardus Kemps and 46 year old James Phillips) and guilty on one count of grievous bodily harm (62 year old Ian Vowles) were read out, there were cheers and hugging between former patients and family members who were watching via live video link. Two days later, Justice John Byrne sentenced Dr. Patel to seven years imprisonment, although he is eligible for parole in less than four years. An appeal against the conviction was lodged by Dr. Patel’s lawyers on July 15 2010.
In arriving at their guilty manslaughter verdicts, the jurors had to consider whether or not Dr. Patel had been criminally negligent under the Queensland Criminal Code by breaching his duty to have reasonable skill and use reasonable care when doing acts which may by dangerous to life or health, particularly medical and surgical treatment, or acts in the course of employment. Although it took the jurors almost a week to agree as a whole group, they decided that Dr. Patel had been guilty of ‘recklessness involving grave moral guilt’, which is the standard of criminal negligence required by the Queensland Supreme Court precedent of R v Jackson & Hodgetts [1990] 1 Qd R 456 (see pages 134 and 135 of Chapter 7 (Criminal Offences) in the Crime and Society section of Legal Studies for Queensland, Volume 1, Fifth Edition).
Whistleblower nurse Toni Hoffman said she felt vindicated by the decision. “It’s vindication and it’s relief, but the price that you have to pay is too great and we shouldn’t have to do that,” she said. Ms Hoffman said it is the end of a chapter she can now close, but the verdict is a warning to others. “This is a message to dodgy doctors everywhere,” she said.
During the trial, Patel’s defence counsel claimed Patel had always acted in the best interests of his patients, who had consented to the operations. Prosecutor Ross Martin, however, who characterised Patel as a “bad surgeon motivated by ego and suffering from lack of insight”, urged the jury to return guilty verdicts on all charges. He told the jury the trial was about “judgements” and that Patel’s negligence extended to his poor decisions about when to operate, and his choices about appropriate post-operative care.
In summing up, Justice John Byrne reminded the jury that Mr Martin neatly summarised the crown’s allegations when he said, “Over 19 to 20 months, there had been poor decision-making, misdiagnosis, performing surgery on patients who could not withstand it, performing surgery at the wrong hospital and the removal of healthy organs”.
Timeline:
- April 2003: Dr Jayant Patel begins work as a surgeon at the Bundaberg Hospital
- June 2003: Toni Hoffman raises concerns about Patel’s conduct as a surgeon
- March 2005: Opposition MP Rob Messenger raises concerns in Parliament about Patel’s competence
- April 2005: Patel resigns and is flown back to Portland by Qld. Health
- April 2005: Media scrutiny reveals Patel banned from performing some surgery in USA
- April 2005: Premier Peter Beattie announces inquiry, headed by Tony Morris
- September 2005: Inquiry headed by Geoff Davies begins after Morris inquiry axed over bias
- November 2006: Warrants issued for Patel’s arrest on charges including manslaughter
- July 2008: Patel extradited to Brisbane from the USA
- June 2010: Patel found guilty of three counts of manslaughter and one count of grievous bodily harm; sentenced to seven years jail.
View the ABC News website at http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/06/29/2940352.htm for a news report entitled ‘Patel guilty on all charges’, which describes the scenes in Brisbane and Bundaberg as the verdicts were handed down by the jury.
Other useful sources contained at this website address are as follows:
Permalink Comments off