Patel v The Queen

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIAFRENCH CJ,HAYNE, HEYDON, KIEFEL AND BELL JJJAYANT MUKUNDRAY PATEL  APPELLANT/APPLICANTANDTHE QUEEN  RESPONDENTPatel v The Queen[2012] HCA 2924 August 2012B11/2012 & B25/2011ORDERIn matter B11/2012:Appeal dismissed.In matter B25/2011:1.Special leave to appeal granted.2.Appeal treated as instituted and heard instanter, and allowed.3.Set aside the order of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Queensland made on 21 April 2011 and, in its place, order that:(a)the appellant's appeal to that Court be allowed;(b)the appellant's convictions for the manslaughter of Mervyn John Morris, James Edward Phillips and Gerardus Wilhelmus Gosewinus Kemps and for unlawfully doing grievous bodily harm to Ian Rodney Vowles be quashed; and(c)a new trial be had.On appeal from the Supreme Court of QueenslandRepresentationL F Kelly SC with D M Turner and P F Mylne for the appellant/applicant (instructed by Raniga Lawyers)W Sofronoff QC, Solicitor-General of the State of Queensland and P J Davis SC with D L Meredith and J R Jones for the respondent (instructed by Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld))Notice:  This copy of the Court's Reasons for Judgment is subject to formal revision prior to publication in the Commonwealth Law Reports.CATCHWORDSPatel v The QueenCriminal law – Manslaughter by criminal negligence – Appellant convicted of manslaughter and unlawfully doing grievous bodily harm – Section 288 of Criminal Code (Q) imposes duty on persons who undertake to administer surgical treatment to have reasonable skill and use reasonable care – Prosecution alleged appellant breached his duty by deciding to operate on certain patients – Whether "surgical treatment" in s...