Ampersand’s Vinit Khurana KC acted for the Scottish Ambulance Service and James McConnell KC and Scott Clair acted for Greater Glasgow Health Board in this Fatal Accident Inquiry. The Inquiry was into three neonatal deaths, and was presided over by Sheriff Principal Anwar. Her detailed determination, extending to over two hundred pages, can be accessed here.
Ampersand’s Vinit Khurana KC acted for the Scottish Ambulance Service and James McConnell KC and Scott Clair acted for Greater Glasgow Health Board in this Fatal Accident Inquiry. The Inquiry was into three neonatal deaths, and was presided over by Sheriff Principal Anwar. Her detailed determination, extending to over two hundred pages, can be accessed here.
Chaired by Lauren Sutherland KC.
Full details of this event, which will take place in Paris on 1-2 September 2025, can be found on the PEOPIL website here.
Ampersand’s Scott Clair acted as junior counsel to Craig Allardice for the pursuer, and James McConnell KC acted for the defenders, in this case which went to proof on allegations of negligence by a psychiatrist. The case has some procedural history, having been to the Sheriff Appeal Court on relevancy questions before finally coming to proof.
The pursuer is a former professional golfer who, on 14 January 2016, was made the subject of compulsory detention for mental health reasons. After four days of detention a psychiatrist reviewed him, concluded that he no longer met the criteria for detention, and revoked the Short-Term Detention Certificate under which he had been detained. The pursuer thereafter discharged himself against medical advice.
The pursuer contended that the psychiatrist’s decision to revoke the STDC was a negligent one, and said that as a result of that revocation he experienced a period of untreated illness. The defenders argued that the decision to revoke the discharge certificate was the correct one, and that in any event no relevant causal consequences flowed from the revocation.
The case came to proof before Sheriff Campbell KC. He preferred the evidence of the defenders’ expert psychiatrist, and found that the treating psychiatrist had not breached his duty and granted decree of absolvitor.
The Judgment of Sheriff Campbell can be found here.
Ampersand’s Scott Clair acted as junior counsel to Craig Allardice for the pursuer, and James McConnell KC acted for the defenders, in this case which went to proof on allegations of negligence by a psychiatrist. The case has some procedural history, having been to the Sheriff Appeal Court on relevancy questions before finally coming to proof.
The pursuer is a former professional golfer who, on 14 January 2016, was made the subject of compulsory detention for mental health reasons. After four days of detention a psychiatrist reviewed him, concluded that he no longer met the criteria for detention, and revoked the Short-Term Detention Certificate under which he had been detained. The pursuer thereafter discharged himself against medical advice.
The pursuer contended that the psychiatrist’s decision to revoke the STDC was a negligent one, and said that as a result of that revocation he experienced a period of untreated illness. The defenders argued that the decision to revoke the discharge certificate was the correct one, and that in any event no relevant causal consequences flowed from the revocation.
The case came to proof before Sheriff Campbell KC. He preferred the evidence of the defenders’ expert psychiatrist, and found that the treating psychiatrist had not breached his duty and granted decree of absolvitor.
The Judgment of Sheriff Campbell can be found here.
In this sad case which arose out of the death in June 2020 of Brian O’Neill. At the time of his death Mr O’Neill was visiting an off-grid hutting community. One evening he fell and sustained a significant laceration to his head. He was attended to in the first place by a psychiatrist, who was also visiting the hutting community and who was, to that extent, “off duty”. A 999 call was made and triaged into the ‘green category’ to be the subject of further triage.
A second 999 call followed, made by a paramedic employed by the defenders. The call was, in substance, to the psychiatrist. The content of the call was very controversial. The psychiatrist’s evidence was that she felt that Mr O’Neill needed to go to hospital, and told the paramedic that. The paramedic gave evidence that the psychiatrist said that she would look after Mr O’Neill without further assistance. After the call ended an ambulance was not sent. The psychiatrist left Mr O’Neill in his hut overnight.
The following morning Mr O’Neill was found on the floor of his hut. He was not breathing and a third 999 call was made. Ambulances were despatched but he could not be resuscitated.
The nub of the case was the second 999 call. The pursuers argued that the paramedic who made it should have sent an ambulance. The defenders argued that the psychiatrist had told the paramedic that an ambulance was not required, and that it was reasonable in those circumstances for the paramedic to decide not to send an ambulance.
The case came to proof before Lord Young. He preferred the evidence of the psychiatrist and found the paramedic to have breached her duty by not sending an ambulance after the second 999 call. He awarded the pursuers more than half a million pounds in damages.
The Opinion of Lord Young can be viewed here.
Ampersand’s Lauren Sutherland KC acted for the pursuers with Hugh Masters as junior counsel, instructed by Drummond Miller LLP.
