Dr. Grumpy Posted February 14, 2022 Share Posted February 14, 2022 (edited) 4 hours ago, Sheldon said: Tribunal awards are normally capped - unless there is a proven whistle blowing element. Needless to say, most claimants now try to crowbar in whistle blowing to their case, somehow, anyhow. Caps are wrong in my view Edited February 14, 2022 by Dr. Grumpy Typo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris Johnson Posted February 14, 2022 Share Posted February 14, 2022 (edited) 15 minutes ago, Dr. Grumpy said: Caps are wrong in my view I agree This looks stupid Imagine a non actor walking into the hospital wearing that, he would be laughed out of the building.... Edited February 14, 2022 by Boris Johnson 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted February 14, 2022 Share Posted February 14, 2022 4 hours ago, Sheldon said: Tribunal awards are normally capped - unless there is a proven whistle blowing element. Needless to say, most claimants now try to crowbar in whistle blowing to their case, somehow, anyhow. Indeed, and of course. The point is, however, that the whistleblowing legislation is intended to encourage and protect whistleblowers. If a claim of whistleblowing fails because of some technicality, or lack of procedural perfection, then wouldn't you think a step back should be taken and the overall is considered? I suppose my argument is where an employee has elevated a matter of concern and is subsequently squeezed out, should the burden of proof be on the employee to establish they had whistleblown, or the employer that they hadn't? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheldon Posted February 14, 2022 Share Posted February 14, 2022 10 minutes ago, Gladys said: where an employee has elevated a matter of concern and is subsequently squeezed out, should the burden of proof be on the employee to establish they had whistleblown, or the employer that they hadn't? Either/or. It's up to the Tribunal to determine cause and effect, there's no hard and fast rules. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
littlebushy Posted February 14, 2022 Share Posted February 14, 2022 1 hour ago, Sheldon said: Either/or. It's up to the Tribunal to determine cause and effect, there's no hard and fast rules. That's how Howie likes to go in! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowman Posted February 15, 2022 Share Posted February 15, 2022 http://www.iomtoday.co.im/article.cfm?id=65880&headline=Four medics charged with manslaughter§ionIs=news&searchyear=2022 Four medics have appeared in court jointly charged with manslaughter. Dr Katherine Mary Teare, aged 42, of Clenagh Road, Sulby, Dr Miklos Janos Palotas, aged 48, of Mwyllin Doo ahh, Braddan, Dr Alison Jayne Hool, aged 43, of Jacks Lane, Ramsey, and Dr Sheila Elizabeth Clarke, aged 53, of Poacher’s Pocket, Ballasalla, are yet to enter pleas to the charge. One is an anaesthetist and three are consultant anaesthetists, employed by Manx Care. The charges follow the death of a patient at the hospital on February 4 last year. James Joseph Shimmin, a 55-year-old man from Douglas, died having undergone a routine operation. The manslaughter charged can only be heard at the Court of General Gaol Delivery. Defence advocate Jim Travers, representing Dr Clarke, said that it was a ‘fundamentally flawed prosecution’ and committal was to be challenged. Dr Teare was represented by Winston Taylor, Dr Palotas by Peter Russell, and Dr Hool by Michael Mudge. All the three advocates also said that they wished to challenge the committal. All four advocates said that their clients would be appointing a Queen’s Counsel (QC) as lead counsel going forward. A committal challenge hearing will be held on April 27. Bail was granted for all four parties in the sum of £500 with a condition to reside at their home address. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boo Gay'n Posted February 15, 2022 Share Posted February 15, 2022 Sweet baby Jebus 20 Manslaughter Whosoever shall unlawfully and feloniously kill another, without malice aforethought, shall be guilty of manslaughter, and being convicted thereof shall be liable, at the discretion of the Court, to imprisonment for life, or to pay such fine as the Court shall award, in addition to or without any such other discretionary punishment as aforesaid; and in any trial for murder, if the jury shall be of opinion and find that the party accused has been guilty of manslaughter only, the said jury shall, by their verdict, find such party guilty of manslaughter, and thereupon the Court may pass such sentence as if such person had been convicted upon an indictment for manslaughter. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Numbnuts Posted February 15, 2022 Share Posted February 15, 2022 (edited) 44 minutes ago, Boo Gay'n said: Sweet baby Jebus 20 Manslaughter Whosoever shall unlawfully and feloniously kill another, without malice aforethought, shall be guilty of manslaughter, and being convicted thereof shall be liable, at the discretion of the Court, to imprisonment for life, or to pay such fine as the Court shall award, in addition to or without any such other discretionary punishment as aforesaid; and in any trial for murder, if the jury shall be of opinion and find that the party accused has been guilty of manslaughter only, the said jury shall, by their verdict, find such party guilty of manslaughter, and thereupon the Court may pass such sentence as if such person had been convicted upon an indictment for manslaughter. Jim Travers is very very good . My money is on him sad sad case though for many reasons . Edited February 15, 2022 by Numbnuts Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Mexico Posted February 15, 2022 Share Posted February 15, 2022 It's worth saying just how rare cases of medical manslaughter are. A 2006 paper found that only 75 cases, involving 85 doctors, were identified in the period 1795-2005. Only 25 of these were actually convicted. That's in 210 years for the whole of Britain. Prosecutions seem to increased more recently, but not to much more than one or two a year. And it's usually single doctors that are prosecuted. I couldn't find a case where it was as many as four. Of course with any crime, the more accused there are the more difficult it is to convict because of the problems of assigning guilt to each individual. So this is an incredibly unusual case, not just for the Isle of Man currently, but for the British Isles over centuries. It will be bound to attract a lot of attention, possibly worldwide. Given that the BMA is already involved with the Ranson case and the fiasco of the Abbotswood prosecution there's going to be a lot of outside focus on DHSC/Manx Care as well as the legal processes. I can see things getting .... interesting. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Numbnuts Posted February 15, 2022 Share Posted February 15, 2022 5 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said: It's worth saying just how rare cases of medical manslaughter are. A 2006 paper found that only 75 cases, involving 85 doctors, were identified in the period 1795-2005. Only 25 of these were actually convicted. That's in 210 years for the whole of Britain. Prosecutions seem to increased more recently, but not to much more than one or two a year. And it's usually single doctors that are prosecuted. I couldn't find a case where it was as many as four. Of course with any crime, the more accused there are the more difficult it is to convict because of the problems of assigning guilt to each individual. So this is an incredibly unusual case, not just for the Isle of Man currently, but for the British Isles over centuries. It will be bound to attract a lot of attention, possibly worldwide. Given that the BMA is already involved with the Ranson case and the fiasco of the Abbotswood prosecution there's going to be a lot of outside focus on DHSC/Manx Care as well as the legal processes. I can see things getting .... interesting. A QC isnt normal in this sort of thing either is it Rodger ? As you say this is going to cause more than a stir Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost Ship Posted February 15, 2022 Share Posted February 15, 2022 If I were a doctor on the Isle of Man facing a manslaughter charge and had - I presume - the backing of a medical defence organisation, I would definitely want to be represented by a QC. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Mexico Posted February 15, 2022 Share Posted February 15, 2022 9 minutes ago, Numbnuts said: A QC isnt normal in this sort of thing either is it Rodger ? As you say this is going to cause more than a stir Actually a QC would be quite normal for charges such as manslaughter, especially if it was a complicated case as this would be bound to be. What is more unusual is that they appear to be challenging the committal, rather than letting it go forward to jury trial as a formality. This suggests that they thing the government has a very weak case indeed and that they intend to expose it as soon as they can. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Numbnuts Posted February 15, 2022 Share Posted February 15, 2022 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said: Actually a QC would be quite normal for charges such as manslaughter, especially if it was a complicated case as this would be bound to be. What is more unusual is that they appear to be challenging the committal, rather than letting it go forward to jury trial as a formality. This suggests that they thing the government has a very weak case indeed and that they intend to expose it as soon as they can. Well as I said Jim Travers is as sharp as , and is very very good . I agree with your thoughts Edited February 15, 2022 by Numbnuts Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kopek Posted February 16, 2022 Share Posted February 16, 2022 To what extent do the AGs bring these cases, 'there, I've done my job', knowing that it could be challenged??? Public interest? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hissingsid Posted February 16, 2022 Share Posted February 16, 2022 A man has died during routine surgery if there had been any underlying illnesses I doubt this case would exist there must have been procedural errors. I doubt this case has been brought lightly as all four are suspended on full pay and have been for some time and it has left the hospital with four anesthetics down. The devastation it has caused to the family is so sad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.