Skip to main content

Hunt’s death-trial tweet ‘was nearly contempt’

Judge slams Health Secretary’s rash intervention in manslaughter hearing

HEALTH Secretary Jeremy Hunt erred close to contempt of court when he sent a “highly inappropriate” tweet during a landmark trial over the hospital death of a new mother, it was revealed yesterday.

The Tory minister tweeted a link to a news report of the trial of Maidstone & Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust for the corporate manslaughter of Frances Cappuccini and of anaesthetist Errol Cornish for gross negligence manslaughter.

But in Mr Hunt’s tweet on January 14, the second day of the trial, he commented that it was a “tragic case from which huge lessons must be learned,” in effect prejudging the trial’s conclusion.

Mr Justice Coulson warned that the Tory minister could be in contempt of court and that he must delete the tweet.

The judge ordered a temporary ban on further reporting from the trial, which prevented publication of Mr Hunt’s transgression until the trial collapsed yesterday.

The trust, which runs Tunbridge Wells Hospital, denied corporate manslaughter following the death of schoolteacher Ms Cappuccini.

She died after losing more than four pints of blood after giving birth to her second son by caesarean section and undergoing postnatal surgery.

Locum consultant anaesthetist Mr Cornish had been accused over his role in the care of Ms Cappuccini, who did not wake up from the anaesthetic and had a heart attack three hours after the operation on October 9 2012.

But Mr Justice Coulson instructed the jury yesterday, two weeks into the trial at Inner London Crown Court, to acquit both defendants after ruling on Wednesday that they had no case to answer and that some of the Crown Prosecution Service’s arguments against the trust had been “perverse.”

He said evidence showed that Dr Cornish’s actions had been “about as far from a gross negligence manslaughter case as it is possible to be.”

Following Mr Hunt’s tweet, Mr Coulson also complained that there were “no professional lawyers” in the House of Commons.

“Potentially, in a very serious case, it could be regarded as a contempt of court. I would hope that everybody would know that,” the judge said.

“Sadly, these days, many people in public life don’t know that.”

OWNED BY OUR READERS

We're a reader-owned co-operative, which means you can become part of the paper too by buying shares in the People’s Press Printing Society.

 

 

Become a supporter

Fighting fund

You've Raised:£ 9,899
We need:£ 8,101
12 Days remaining
Donate today