Regulatory justice following gross negligence manslaughter verdicts: Nurse/doctor differences

Abstract

Two professionals who treated Jack Adcock before his death were convicted of gross negligence manslaughter, receiving 24-month suspended sentences. His nurse, Isabel Amaro, was erased from the nursing register; but after reviews in the High Court and Court of Appeal, his doctor, Hadiza Bawa-Garba, was merely suspended. This article explores the proposition that nurses are at greater risk of erasure than doctors after gross negligence manslaughter through a close reading of the guidance for medical and nursing tribunals informed by analysis from the High Court and Court of Appeal in the Bawa-Garba cases. Examination of the relevant sections of the guidance for medical and nursing tribunals reveals no significant differences. An outline of the conduct that amounted to breach of duty of care by Amaro and Bawa-Garba shows that their conduct could satisfy the thresholds for erasure given in their professions’ respective guidelines for tribunals. Both presented similar mitigating evidence, although this cannot be weighed heavily in a professional tribunal setting. Thus, Amaro was treated more harshly than Bawa-Garba without a simple explanation. However, I suggest that the Nursing and Midwifery Council’s Conduct and Competence Committee made a mistaken ‘presumption of erasure’ for gross negligence manslaughter and misinterpreted the sway that sentencing remarks should hold over tribunals. Both of these types of error were criticised by the Court of Appeal in Bawa-Garba. Furthermore, the Conduct and Competence Committee did not flesh out its analysis of ‘public confidence’ or acknowledge Lord Hoffmann’s caution against ending ‘useful’ careers for the sake of public confidence, but Bawa-Garba’s legal team ensured these arguments were taken into account by the Medical Professional Tribunal. The Conduct and Competence Committee’s failures are not inherent to Nursing and Midwifery Council procedure or policy. Rather Amaro’s self-representation appears to have impaired her access to justice. Tribunals must accept their right, and responsibility, to reach their own conclusions.