Articles and Case Studies

The Criminality of Treatment: Dr Patel & Beyond(Part 3) | Defence Update

06 Dec 2012

View other articles in this series:
Dr Patel & Beyond Part 4
Dr Patel & Beyond Part 2
Dr Patel & Beyond Part 1

Dr Jayant Patel has finally had his case determined by the High Court. In a unanimous decision the High Court of Australia1 upheld Dr Patel's appeal for convictions of manslaughter and unlawfully doing grievous bodily harm under the Queensland Criminal Code2 (the Code). A new trial was ordered, so the matter will return to the Queensland Courts for re-hearing. Dr Patel has been granted bail ahead of the re-hearing. What does the decision mean for Dr Patel, and what does it mean for the remainder of the profession?

Dr Patel had been convicted of three counts of manslaughter and one count of unlawfully doing grievous bodily harm in the course of surgery on four patients while at Bundaberg Base Hospital. Until day 43 of the trial the prosecution had focused its case on seeking to establish Dr Patel had been grossly negligent and incompetent in the performance of the surgery. As the case progressed it was clear the evidence would not support findings that the surgery was performed incompetently. On day 43 the prosecution re-cast its case and sought to establish a criminal act arising from the decision to perform each of the surgical procedures. The High Court determined that the prosecutions' conduct, in changing their focus mid trial had led to a miscarriage of justice.

While Dr Patel has been given a “reprieve” and is permitted a retrial he does so knowing the High Court has dealt him somewhat of a legal blow. Dr Patel was unsuccessful in persuading the Court that s.288 should be restricted in its application to the performance of surgery alone and not expanded to the decision to operate or to advise. S.288 of the Queensland Code enshrines a legislative obligation to preserve life, and, until this case, it was thought only applied to the actual performance of the surgery – requiring that surgery be performed with a reasonable standard of care and skill.

In a joint judgment the High Court said that s.288 extended to a duty in respect of a decision as to whether the contemplated surgery be undertaken. The court said that the phrase “surgical treatment” as used in s.288 encompasses all that is provided in the course of such treatment from giving of an opinion relating to surgery to the aftermath of surgery. This is supported by the duty in s.288 in respect of surgical and medical treatment which refers to a person who undertakes to administer, not just administer, the treatment.

The Court did however say that s.288 could not apply to establish criminal responsibility for death/manslaughter or grievous bodily harm without the physical act of surgery. So there can be no finding of criminal responsibility in medical management without the physical act of surgery. The High Court judgment does make it very clear that a medical practitioner can be prosecuted for gross negligence for recommending surgery that, even though performed competently, should not have been performed.

The High Court judgment is significant for Dr Patel in the ongoing conduct of his re-hearing. The court's interpretation of s.288 would seem to create a significant obstacle in circumstances where the medical evidence did tend to point to concerns around Dr Patel's decision to recommend the surgery.

While Dr Patel was successful in overturning the Court of Appeal's judgment he has achieved little more than a temporary reprieve. On re-hearing, the High Court has removed the ambiguity in s.288 that his legal team seized on in the lower courts. Dr Patel's team has a challenge before them.

Should fellow practitioners be concerned about the High Court's findings? As the Court was interpreting a section of the Queensland Code, a section that is perhaps unique to that Code, it is arguable the judgment only applies to conduct in that state. Moreover the Patel "circumstances" that brought him to Court were perhaps created by a perfect storm – medically, bureaucratically and politically. Finally it should be noted that any assessment of potential criminal conduct must be to the very high criminal standard, beyond reasonable doubt. It really does require grossly incompetent decision making. When considered in context the risk to fellow practitioners, of a criminal investigation, is perhaps not as significant as the media hype had led us to believe.

Are you concerned about the High Court’s findings? Share your comments with us below.

Kerrie Chambers is the senior partner in the Health Group at HWL Ebsworth Lawyers and Feneil Shah is an associate.

1 [2012] HCA 29 (24 August 2012); French CJ, Hayne, Kiefel and Bell JJ (joint judgment) and Heydon J

2 Sections 291, 303 and 320 of the Code create the offences of unlawful manslaughter and grievous bodily harm Kerrie Chambers is the senior partner in the Health Group at HWL Ebsworth Lawyers and Feneil Shah is an Associate.

Anaesthesia, Dermatology, Emergency Medicine, General Practice, Intensive Care Medicine, Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Ophthalmology, Pathology, Practice Manager Or Owner, Psychiatry, Radiology, Sports Medicine, Surgery


My Career Journey with Dr Nick Coatsworth

Dr Nick Coatsworth is an expert in health policy, public administration and a practising infectious diseases physician. He held a national role in the Australian response to COVID-19 as Deputy Chief Medical Officer of Australia, becoming one of the most recognised medical spokespeople during the pandemic. Nick engaged the Australian community through a variety of media platforms most notably as the spearhead of the national COVID-19 vaccination campaign. Dr Micheal Gannon, Obstetrician & Gynaecologist, sits down with Dr Nick Coatsworth to discuss Nick's medical career journey, and what insights and advice he has for junior doctors. MDA National would like to acknowledge the contributions of MDA National staff, Members, friends and colleagues in the production of the podcast and note that this work is copyright. Apart from any use permitted under applicable copyright law, you may not reproduce the content of this podcast without the permission of MDA National. This podcast contains generic information only, is intended to stimulate thought and discussion, and doesn’t account for requirements of any particular individual. The content may contain opinions which are not necessarily those of MDA National. We recommend that you always contact your indemnity provider when you require specific advice in relation to your insurance policy or medico-legal matters. MDA National Members need to contact us for specific medico-legal advice on freecall 1800 011 255 or email We may also refer you to other professional services.


09 Jun 2022

Career complications and contending with uncertainty

Among the many challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic for junior doctors is how to respond to medical training impacts and career uncertainty. In this podcast, Dr Caroline Elton (a psychologist who specialises in helping doctors)and Dr Benjamin Veness (a Psychiatry registrar) share advice for coping with medical training and career delays, disruptions and unknowns.


10 Aug 2020