Optometrist’s manslaughter conviction quashed

Ms Honey Rose, 35, was initially found guilty of gross negligence manslaughter and given a two-year suspended sentence after a jury heard she had failed to notice that eight-year-old Vincent Barker had swollen optic discs during a routine eye exam.{{quote-A:R-W:450-I:3-Q:This decision does not, in any sense, condone the negligence that the jury must have found to have been established at a high level in relation to the way that Ms Rose examined Vincent.-WHO:Sir Brian Leveson}}The boy died five months later as a result of fluid build up in the brain and it was argued that Rose was guilty of a “serious breach of duty” by not recognising the symptoms of the condition.However, the Court of Appeal’s judges concluded that the initial judge, Justice Stuart-Smith, misdirected the case to the jury when applying the legal test of “foreseeability” regarding the outcome of Barker’s death. They also commented that the earlier decision by the jury would have had serious implications for all medical professionals.In explaining the Court of Appeals’ ruling, Judge Sir Brian Leveson, one of three who overturned the manslaughter ruling, said: “This decision does not, in any sense, condone the negligence that the jury must have found to have been established at a high level in relation to the way that Ms Rose examined Vincent and failed to identify the defect which ultimately led to his death.“That serious breach of duty is a matter for her regulator; in the context of this case, however, it does not constitute the crime of gross negligence manslaughter.”A statent released by Barker’s parents following the trial said the decision had failed to give justice to their son, who they believed would still be alive if Rose had been able to detect the abnormality.“Not only has Vinnie been let down by an individual optometrist, today he has also been failed by the legal syst. The ruling or even granting leave to appeal to us makes a mockery of the original verdict and what we believed the justice syst to be.“The appeal process has not been about whether Honey Rose is guilty. It has been based on the rulings of previous, and we feel non-comparable, cases and the loopholes they provide to allow a fair conviction to be overturned,” the statent read.“We will never accept that Honey Rose is not guilty, nor understand the lack of accountability for her duty of care to Vinnie. We are unable to comprehend the ability of someone to be continuously dishonest in circumstances where a child has died. We are left simply to question the humanity of such a person,” the Barkers added.The UK’s General Optical Council is now examining the case.More reading: Convicted UK optometrist given two-year suspended sentenceIMAGE TOP: Courtesy Flickr/Penn State