|
Wrongly Convicted Database Record
|
Charge: |
Manslaughter |
Sentence: |
2 years suspended |
Years Imprisoned: |
|
Year Crime: |
2012 |
Year Convicted: |
2016 |
Year Cleared: |
2017 |
U.S. State or Country of Crime: |
United Kingdom |
County or Region of Crime: |
England |
City of Crime: |
Ipswich |
Result: |
Judicially Exonerated Released |
Summary of Case: |
"Honey Maria Rose was wrongly convited on July 15, 2016 of gross negligence manslaughter in the death of eight-year-old Vincent Barker in July 2012. Honey Rose became a licensed optometrist in June 2010. In 2012 she was married, had three kids, and she worked at Boots Opticians in Ipswich, England. Her prosecution was based on her failure to identify during her Feburary 15, 2012 examination of 7-year-old Vincent Barker that he had swollen optic discs, which is a symptom of hydrocephalus - fluid on the brain. Rose did not record any issues of concern with Vincent and that he did not need glasses. Vincent's death five months later on July 13, 2012, was determined to have been caused by acute hydrocephalus. The prosecution contended that her failure to notice the indicator of Vincent's fatal condition, and her failure to refer him for urgent medical treatment, constituted gross negligence. Trial Judge Stuart-Smith denied the defense's argument that the prosecution's evidence was insufficient to give her a case to answer. Rose's defense was that she had conducted all the required tests during Vincent's eye examination. The jury found her guilty on July 15, 2016 following a ten-day trial. On August 26, 2016 Judge Stuart-Smith sentenced Rose to two years in prison, suspended for two years with supervision, and ordered to perform 200 hours of unpaid community work. Rose appealed. On July 31, 2017 the Court of Appeals for England and Wales quashed Rose's conviction on the basis the prosecution failed to introduce sufficient evidence to prove her conduct was grossly negligent. Their ruling stated: "In the circumstances, the relevant principles in relation to cases of gross negligence manslaughter can be summarised as follows: 77.(1) The offence of gross negligence manslaughter requires breach of an existing duty of care which it is reasonably foreseeable gives rise to a serious and obvious risk of death and does, in fact, cause death in circumstances where, having regard to the risk of death, the conduct of the defendant was so bad in all the circumstances as to go beyond the requirement of compensation but to amount to a criminal act or omission. .... 91. So that the matter is not in doubt, the fact that the cause of the defendant's lack of knowledge of a serious and obvious risk of death to the victim was the defendant's own breach of duty to carry out a requisite examination or inspection is not to point. ... 92. Further, the fact also that the purpose of the duty in the present case is to detect signs of injury, disease or abnormality is also not to point. ... In some cases, there might be 'wilful blindness' to a serious and obvious risk of death, but that is not the present case. 93. ... for the reasons which we have explained, the case should have been withdrawn from the jury at the close of the prosecution case. ... 94. Reverting to the question posed at the commencement of this judgment, we conclude that, in assessing reasonable foreseeability of serious and obvious risk of death in cases of gross negligence manslaughter, it is not appropriate to take into account what the defendant would have known but for his or her breach of duty. Were the answer otherwise, this would fundamentally undermine the established legal test of foreseeability in gross negligence manslaughter which requires proof of a "serious and obvious risk of death" at the time of breach. The implications for medical and other professions would be serious because people would be guilty of gross negligence manslaughter by reason of negligent omissions to carry out routine eye, blood and other tests which in fact would have revealed fatal conditions notwithstanding that the circumstances were such that it was not reasonably foreseeable that failure to carry out such tests would carry an obvious and serious risk of death. For these reasons, this appeal is allowed and the conviction is quashed. 95. We add that 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." [Honey Maria Rose v. Regina, [2017] EWCA Crim 1168 (Ct. of Appeals, 7-31-2017)]" |
Conviction Caused By: |
|
Innocence Proved By: |
"On July 31, 2017 the Court of Appeals for England and Wales quashed Rose's conviction." |
Defendant Aided By: |
|
Compensation Awarded: |
|
Was Perpetrator Identified? |
|
Age When Imprisoned: |
|
Age When Released: |
|
Sex: |
Female |
Skin/Ethnicity: |
White |
Information Source 1: |
"Honey Maria Rose v. Regina, [2017] EWCA Crim 1168 (Ct. of Appeals, 7-31-2017) (Quashing conviction on basis the prosecution failed to introduce sufficient evidence to prove Honey Rose commited gross negligence manslaughter.)" |
Information Location 1: |
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2017/1168.html |
Information Source 2: |
"Vincent Barker death: Optometrist Honey Rose conviction quashed, By Staff, BBC News, July 31, 2017" |
Information Location 2: |
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-suffolk-40776091 |
Information Source 3: |
""Why did you commit such a basic error?' Judge says Boots optometrist should have spotted boy's fatal brain problem but won't jail her after hearing his family don't want her children to suffer," By Ekin Karasin (For MailOnline), Daily Mail (London), August 26, 2016" |
Information Location 3: |
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3759624/Ipswich-optometrist-convicted-manslaughter-death-eight-year-old-boy-failed-notice-fatal-eye-condition-sentenced.html |
Information Source 4: |
|
Information Location 4: |
|
Information Source 5: |
|
Information Location 5: |
|
Book About Case: |
|
Book Information: |
|
Book About Case (2): |
|
Book Information (2): |
|
Movie About Case: |
|
Comments About Case: |
Innocents Database Created and Maintained by Hans Sherrer innocents@forejustice.org