A paediatrician who was convicted of gross negligence manslaughter after the death of six-year-old boy has today won her appeal over the decision to strike her off.
Dr Hadiza Bawa-Garba fought a decision made in January by two High Court judges to substitute erasure for the lesser sanction of a year’s suspension imposed by the Medical Practitioners Tribunal (MPT) in June last year.
Their ruling followed a successful appeal by the General Medical Council (GMC), which argued that suspension was ‘not sufficient’ to protect the public or maintain public confidence in the medical profession.
Little Jack Adcock, of Glen Parva, Leicestershire – who had Down’s Syndrome and a heart condition – died at Leicester Royal Infirmary in 2011 after he developed sepsis.

Dr Hadiza Bawa-Garba (left) was convicted of gross negligence manslaughter after the death of six-year-old Jack Adcock (right)
Speaking to Sky News, Jack’s mother Nicky Adcock said she would fight the decision at the Supreme Court.
She said: ‘The verdict was an ‘absolute disgrace’ that set ‘a precedent for doctors to do exactly what they like.
‘All they’re concerned about is the doctors in the profession.
‘It seems people seem to be quite scared of the doctors, they seem to think they’re untouchable.’


Jack (right) from Glen Parva, Leicestershire died in Leicester in 2011 after he developed sepsis. His mother Nicky Adcok, left, pictured last month, said she would fight the decision at the Supreme Court
Dr Bawa-Garba celebrated her successful appeal, telling BBC’s Panorama today: ‘I’m very pleased with the outcome but I want to pay tribute and remember Jack Adcock, a wonderful little boy that started the story.
‘I want to let the parents know that I’m sorry for my role in what has happened to Jack.
‘I also want to acknowledge and give gratitude to people around the world from the public to the medical community who have supported me. I’m very overwhelmed by the generosity and I’m really grateful for that.’
After a 2015 trial at Nottingham Crown Court, Dr Bawa-Garba was sentenced to two years in prison suspended for two years.
The sentencing judge said that neither she nor a nurse who was on duty at the time ‘gave Jack the priority which this very sick boy deserved’.
Dr Bawa-Garba’s counsel, James Laddie QC, told the Court of Appeal that the MPT’s decision was ‘humane and balanced’.

Nicola and Victor Adcock, parents of Jack Adcock and his grandmother Maggie at Nottingham Crown Court
He said: ‘The MPT concluded that suspension was an appropriate sanction which was necessary in the public interest.
‘That conclusion was within its margin of judgment and was rational. Indeed the MPT’s conclusion was correct.
But Ivan Hare QC, for the GMC, said the High Court had regard to the individual circumstances of the case and its reasoning was straightforward and correct.
The MPT had undermined the Fitness to Practise Rules and the jury’s verdict by reaching its own conclusion on Dr Bawa-Garba’s individual culpability by reference to systemic failings and the failings of others, he added.
Unanimously allowing the appeal today, the Lord Chief Justice Lord Burnett, the Master of the Rolls Sir Terence Etherton and Lady Justice Rafferty said that Dr Bawa-Garba’s name should be restored to the medical register forthwith and remitted the matter to the MPT for review of the suspension, which will remain in place in the meantime.
Sir Terence Etherton said: ‘The members of the Court express their deep sympathy with Jack’s parents, who attended the hearing in person, as well as respect for the dignified and resolute way in which they have coped with a terrible loss in traumatic circumstances.
‘The present case is unusual. No concerns have ever been raised about the clinical competence of Dr Bawa-Garba, other than in relation to Jack’s death, even though she continued to be employed at the hospital until her conviction.
‘The evidence before the tribunal was that she was in the top third of her specialist trainee cohort.
‘The tribunal was satisfied that her deficient actions in relation to Jack were neither deliberate nor reckless, that she had remedied the deficiencies in her clinical skills and did not present a continuing risk to patients, and that the risk of her clinical practice suddenly and without explanation falling below the standards expected on any given day was no higher than for any other reasonably competent doctor.
‘The tribunal was an expert body entitled to reach all those conclusions, including the important factor weighing in favour of Dr Bawa-Garba that she is a competent and useful doctor, who presents no material continuing danger to the public, and can provide considerable useful future service to society.’
Sir Terence added: ‘Undoubtedly, there are some cases where the facts are such that the most severe sanction, erasure from the Medical Register, is the only proper and reasonable sanction. This is not one of them.

The court today expressed ‘deep sympathy’ to Jack’s parents, Nicola and Victor Adcock
‘Once it is understood that it was permissible for the tribunal to take into account the full context of Jack’s death, including the range of persons bearing responsibility for that tragedy and the systemic failings of the hospital, as well as the other matters relied upon by Dr Bawa-Garba, and that the tribunal plainly had in mind its overriding obligation to protect the public for the future, it is impossible to say that the suspension sanction imposed by the tribunal was not one properly open to it and that the only sanction properly and reasonably available was erasure.’

Jack had Down’s Syndrome and a known heart condition
Dr Rob Hendry, medical director at the Medical Protection Society (MPS), said after the ruling: ‘We are very pleased the appeal submitted by Dr Bawa-Garba’s legal team has been successful.
‘MPS supported Dr Bawa-Garba for seven years. We know how much this will mean to her, and to the profession.
‘The strength of feeling on this case amongst our members and the wider healthcare community has been unprecedented.
‘It is vital that lessons are now learned to avoid other doctors having to go through the same ordeal.’
Dr Samantha Batt-Rawden, chair of the Doctors’ Association UK, said: ‘This is a small step in the right direction for patients and doctors.
‘We need to make sure that patients and families get the answers they need through open and transparent engagement with NHS organisations.
‘The GMC needs to rethink its priorities in enabling this to happen rather than aggressively pursuing doctors in the courts.’
Dr Cicely Cunningham, who runs the Doctors’ Association UK’s Learn Not Blame campaign, welcomed the result.
She said: ‘Pursuing an honest doctor with a previously unblemished record through the courts for errors made in the context of system failures does nothing to improve patient safety.
‘The GMC needs to shift its focus away from individual blame and instead truly prioritise the safety and well-being of those who use the NHS.’
Charlie Massey, chief executive of the General Medical Council (GMC), said after the ruling: ‘We fully accept the Court of Appeal’s judgment. This was a case of the tragic death of a child, and the consequent criminal conviction of a doctor.
‘It was important to clarify the different roles of criminal courts and disciplinary tribunals in cases of gross negligence manslaughter, and we will carefully examine the court’s decision to see what lessons can be learnt.’
Dr Chandra Kanneganti, chair of the British International Doctors’ Association (BIDA), said: ‘This is what we’ve been fighting for the last few months.
‘Now we know that this is not right to scapegoat one doctor for failures in the system. The GMC was wrong in taking this case to court.
‘This is really a milestone where doctors will feel safe to raise concerns where there are any issues with staffing.’
Royal College of Physicians (RCP) president Professor Dame Jane Dacre said that the judgment was ‘a welcome step towards the development of a just culture in healthcare, as opposed to a blame culture’.
‘But our thoughts today are first and foremost with the family of six-year-old Jack Adcock who died as a result of the errors that were made. While we understand the judgment is not what they hoped for, the RCP believes it will help us develop a culture in which families like them will be more likely to receive the support, clear explanations and apologies they need and deserve.’
She added: ‘We hope today’s judgment will provide some reassurance to doctors, particularly our trainees, that they will be protected if they make a mistake.
‘We remain concerned at the impact this case has had on professional reflection, which is crucial to helping us improve our performance. We again urge all doctors to keep on reflecting.’