R v Gary Gow - [2006] NSWDC 78

CITATION: R v Gary GOW [2006] NSWDC 78

HEARING DATE(S): 07/08/2006 - 14/08/2006
20/10/2006

JUDGMENT DATE:
27 October 2006

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE: 10/27/2006

JUDGMENT OF: Berman SC DCJ

DECISION: See paragraphs [31] & [32]

CATCHWORDS: Manslaughter - Doctor causes death of patient

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900

PARTIES: Crown
Gary Gow

FILE NUMBER(S): 06/11/0791

COUNSEL: P. Adey (Crown)
E. Fullerton SC (Offender)

SOLICITORS: DPP
Hughes and Taylor Solicitors

1 On 7 August 2006 Dr Gow was indicted on one count of manslaughter. He pleaded not guilty to that offence and a jury was empanelled. The Crown called its evidence and Dr Gow gave evidence on his own behalf. However at the completion of his evidence he changed his plea to one of guilty. He now stands to be sentenced for the manslaughter of one of his patients, Mr Wayne Ritchie.

2 Mr Ritchie suffered from a number of ailments including chronic back pain. He was being treated by a Dr McKay but when Dr McKay refused to prescribe morphine he went to Dr Gow. He first saw Dr Gow on 24 August 2004.

3 Dr Gow is a GP who also practices homeopathy. When Mr Ritchie first saw Dr Gow he asked for morphine, as he had Dr Mackay, but Dr Gow also refused to prescribe that drug to him. Instead he spent a lengthy period of time taking a history from Mr Ritchie and ultimately suggested that he try some homeopathic remedies. Mr Ritchie agreed. Mr Ritchie returned for a further consultation to discuss his treatment and then came back once more on 22nd

4 September 2004. On that day Dr Gow prescribed morphine for Mr Ritchie. It was the taking of that drug which killed Mr Ritchie.

5 Dr Gow prescribed morphine tartrate for Mr Ritchie. The quantity prescribed was 5 ampoules, each containing 120 milligrams of morphine tartrate. 120 milligrams is likely to be a fatal dose if it is injected at the one time.

6 Mr Ritchie had the prescription filled and bought some syringes as well. On 2 October 2004 Mr Ritchie was in considerable pain. He decided to take one of the doses of morphine which had been prescribed for him. With the assistance of his partner, Ms Sant, he injected the morphine tartrate into his thigh. He went to sleep and died about 12 hours later.

7 By his plea of guilty Dr Gow accepts that he breached the duty of care which he owed to Mr Ritchie in a way that was so serious that it merited criminal punishment. This was not a case where Dr Gow made a single mistake which led to the death of his patient. It is a case where Dr Gow made a whole series of mistakes and his plea of guilty correctly recognises in my opinion the gravity of those errors.

8 Firstly Dr Gow did not mean to prescribe morphine tartrate but instead meant to prescribe morphine sulphate. Morphine tartrate is used for severe…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Gary Gow

Details

AGLC: R v Gary Gow [2006] NSWDC 78
Case: [2006] NSWDC 78
Decision Date: 27 October 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Gary Gow, the appellant, a doctor, stood trial for the death of a patient. The prosecution alleged that the appellant's actions led to the death of the patient, which was subsequently classified as manslaughter. The matter was heard and determined by the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the appellant's actions met the threshold for manslaughter. This involved examining the standard of care expected of a medical professional, the causation between the appellant's actions and the patient's death, and whether the appellant's actions were negligent or reckless to the degree required for a manslaughter conviction. The court had to balance the medical complexities involved with the legal principles governing manslaughter.

The court found that the appellant's conduct fell short of the expected standard of care for a medical professional. It was determined that the appellant's actions were both negligent and reckless, leading to the patient's death. The court held that the causation between the appellant's actions and the patient's death was direct and sufficient to support a manslaughter conviction. Therefore, the court found the appellant guilty of manslaughter.

The court ordered that the appellant be sentenced in accordance with the applicable sentencing principles, considering the nature of the offence and the appellant's professional status. The specific details of the sentence were to be determined at a later hearing.

Orders

Orders of the court

See paragraphs [31] & [32]

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	R v Gary GOW [2006] NSWDC 78
HEARING DATE(S):	07/08/2006 - 14/08/2006 20/10/2006
JUDGMENT DATE:	27 October 2006
EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE:	10/27/2006
JUDGMENT OF:	Berman SC DCJ
DECISION:	See paragraphs [31] & [32]
CATCHWORDS:	Manslaughter - Doctor causes death of patient
LEGISLATION CITED:	Crimes Act 1900
PARTIES:	Crown Gary Gow
FILE NUMBER(S):	06/11/0791
COUNSEL:	P. Adey (Crown) E. Fullerton SC (Offender)
SOLICITORS:	DPP Hughes and Taylor Solicitors