Australia: Why are medical manslaughter cases so rare in Australia?

Last Updated: 29 November 2017
Article by Bill Madden

In 2011, a baby named Tully Oliver Kavanagh died from hypoxic-ischaemic encephalopathy in Adelaide.

Tully was a twin. His mother, against her GP's advice, had opted for a planned homebirth where the only medical supervision was provided by former midwife and homebirth campaigner Lisa Barrett.

Baby Ruby, who would've been Tully's sister, was born first, healthy.

Then the unborn Tully's heart rate dropped and his mother noticed a huge blood clot.

She was rushed to hospital in the family car.

Partway there, the driver pulled over, and Tully was born.

When he arrived unconscious at the Women's and Children's Hospital, clinicians managed to resuscitate him, but diagnosed brain damage that was, in the coroner's words, "incompatible with life".

The case is significant because in June this year after a long investigation, police decided to bring manslaughter charges against Ms Barrett, alleging that her care of Tully's mother was so negligent it required criminal punishment.

Medical manslaughter cases are rare in Australia. Since the first case 165 years ago, just four doctors have been convicted of the offence and two of those date back more than 100 years.

Some legal commenters, such as law lecturer Associate Professor Ian Dobinson, have argued this rarity means prosecutors are confronted with a grey area of the law, leading to some cases not being pursued through the courts.

"In hospitals, there's a really high rate of what's determined to be 'avoidable death'," says Professor Dobinson, from the University of Technology Sydney.

"That suggests the treatment somewhere, somehow has been negligent."

He points to the Bankstown-Lidcombe Hospital, in Sydney, where a baby died in 2016 after nitrous oxide was administered instead of oxygen.

"How do you make such a mistake, other than circumstances of gross negligence?

"But we see no prosecution. Why? Is it too hard?"

As Professor Dobinson wrote in a 2009 paper for the University of Queensland Law Journal, manslaughter charges are more common in the UK than in Australia.

"In the UK, it seems to suggest a greater propensity of their Crown Prosecution Service to prosecute doctors, and there seems to be a reasonable likelihood of conviction," he says.

"While the law there and the law here are in principle the same, there's the difference — a willingness to prosecute."

The number of UK prosecutions also spiked after the high-profile conviction, of anaesthetist Dr John Adomako, who failed to notice an alarm sounding when a patient's breathing tube fell out during an eye operation.

In the 20 years before R v Adomako, in 1990, there were two UK medical manslaughter cases. In the following 10 years, the number rose to 13.

In the UK, as in Australia, prosecutors can only proceed if they believe a case is likely to succeed. The Adomako case showed UK prosecutors that manslaughter convictions were possible.

It was for this reason that some lawyers in Australia thought the case of Dr Jayant Patel — a man branded 'Dr Death' as a result of his alleged incompetence — would be the game-changer.

After a newspaper exposé and mass media coverage, an independent inquiry was launched, where surgeon Dr Peter Woodruff found that Dr Patel's substandard surgical care contributed to 13 deaths and may have contributed to another four.

Manslaughter charges were eventually laid in 2010 and Dr Patel was found guilty of killing three of his patients.

The Crown alleged that there had been poor decision-making and misdiagnosis, with surgery performed on inappropriate patients and the removal of healthy organ. The jury agreed that Dr Patel's decision to practise beyond the scope of his abilities was grossly negligent.

He was sentenced to seven years in jail. But Dr Patel appealed.

The High Court of Australia filleted the court's conviction with a surgical knife.

Prosecutors had gone wrong in originally telling the jury that Dr Patel's gross negligence was a result of his poor surgical skills, but then, 43 days into the 50-day trial, radically changing track to argue that it was Dr Patel's decision to operate, not his actual skill during the operation, where the gross negligence had occurred.

The High Court found this approach was a serious miscarriage of justice and quashed the conviction.

At the retrial, Dr Patel was subsequently cleared by the jury of manslaughter. He was 'Dr Death' no more.

Professor Dobinson says until the High Court appeal, people assumed the conviction of Dr Patel would provide significant legal clarity on the sort of acts or omissions that make up medical manslaughter.

"To a certain extent, it looked like we had a useful case in the form of Patel," he says.

Instead of giving a clear indication of how grossly negligent a doctor would have to be in their practice before a manslaughter conviction would stick, the case merely showed that the benchmark was somewhere higher than Dr Patel's failings, somewhere still not clearly defined.

It is worth stressing not everyone agrees with Professor Dobinson. Lawyer Bill Madden, a specialist in personal injury law, says it's not that prosecutors are too nervous to pursue medical manslaughter cases.

"I think they'd be cautious, but I wouldn't go as far as to say they're unlikely [to pursue cases]," says Mr Madden, Special Counsel at Carroll & O'Dea Lawyers in Sydney.

To non-lawyers, it may seem like the law is too vague, but Mr Madden says it's the way things are.

As frustrating as it might be for prosecutors trying to gauge the success or otherwise of their case, Mr Madden says there are unlikely to ever be specific markers signifying what makes a manslaughter charge stick.

"The law develops in a piecemeal way, where it considers each case."

But tempering statements such as this have not doused the interest in the upcoming trial of Lisa Barrett. Her next court appearance, her second so far, is slated for October. She is yet to formerly enter a plea.

When news broke of the charges, the local newspaper in Ms Barrett's hometown of Adelaide was spruiking the case as a global precedent. Whether this proves to be true or just a perverse form of hometown bias, medical defence organisations will be watching the trial with great interest.

Medical manslaughter convictions

The main legal clues to how Australian courts tackle medical manslaughter cases are the four successful convictions that researchers have identified. Perhaps reassuringly, there are consistencies visible even across the centuries.

Dr William Valentine (1843)

The first Australian doctor convicted of manslaughter, the Tasmanian Dr Valentine, admitted giving a patient a bottle of laudanum instead of the black draught he meant to.

He was found guilty but escaped with a £25 fine.

Dr Frederick Hornbrook (1864)

Dr Hornbrook, from Goulburn in regional NSW, was found guilty of manslaughter after administering 210 drops of sulfuric acid to an adult patient — 13 times the maximum dose.

The court sentenced him to two years' jail, sparking a lobbying effort from local doctors in private practice, who opposed the result. After just one month in jail, Dr Hornbrook received a royal pardon.

Dr Margaret Pearce (2000)

Almost 150 years later, Brisbane GP Dr Margaret Pearce was convicted after a similar error.

Dr Pearce injected a 15-month-old girl with morphine to stop the girl struggling and allow Dr Pearce to examine her burnt hand, according to a report in the Lancet.

The morphine dose was 15mg, about 10 times the required amount. The girl died overnight.

The court sentenced Dr Pearce to five years' jail, suspended after six months.

In 2003, while serving the suspended part of her sentence, Dr Pearce's registration was reinstated.

Dr Arthur Garry Gow (2006)

In another case reflected across centuries, Dr Gow prescribed a patient five ampules of morphine tartrate, instead of morphine sulfate.

The patient died after self-administering 120mg of the morphine tartrate to treat chronic back pain.

Like Dr William Valentine, who had also mixed up medications, Dr Gow was convicted of manslaughter.

He received an 18-month suspended sentence.

Justifying the suspended sentence, the judge said system failures had contributed to the death and the sentence was "to recognise that people, even professional people, make mistakes".

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Bill Madden
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
 
Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
 
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions