Jump to content

Oxford University student who stabbed her lover in a drink & drug fuelled row could be spared jail


Recommended Posts

TE44 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

> it's a different level when your dabbling becomes

> a habit where you are using it as mitigating

> evidence for physically injuring someone.

It wasn't mitigating evidence for physically injuring someone. She pled guilty.


"I'm not a fan of 'promising career' being the reason for leniency"


It wasn't the reason for leniency. It was one of a number of factors the court considered before handing down the sentence.

Jules-and-Boo Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> In answer to your question, Otta, drugs make

> people unstable. A surgeon would be expected to be

> stable and predictable.

>

> Her choices of taking drugs and getting into such

> a state she becomes extremely violent does not

> bode well.

>

> Her values are obviously shot. Hardly a reputable,

> reliable, respectable person.


I think this is completely wrong. It is wrong on a psychological level: if I think back to what I did in my youth I would be disqualified from any profession. I have no doubt this is the strength of the recent moves to remove social media records of under 18s (and under 30s perhaps). And yes, metaphorically at least, I did inhale. Am I so very different? It is also wrong on a professional level: surgery has required people with a kind of blind in-human-ness to make progress. They must kill to cure in the development of their profession. This is the reality - see recent histories of the early days of heart surgery. You simply had to be prepared to engage in a kind of recklessness. One could make similar points about other professions, notably the armed services.

Well no worries for posters supporting the hundreds of doctors still practising after conviction including sex offenders. Who knows, there may be a terrible relationship that caused it.

Otta I hope your child never needs to see a paediatrition and your faced with a doctor the GMC have decided to let practice again. But not to worry it won't you won't have a right to know.

I find the relatively new power of the government to challenge sentences as too lenient (via the Attorney General) deeply disturbing. No danger of a growing heteronomy of the judiciary then.

Well, I have never heard of 'intelligence' being a mitigating factor for violence and drug abuse.


If drugs affect someone so much that they pick up a knife and hurt someone, then personally i think it's extremely stupid to let it go so lightly.


Her behaviour is extremely unsettling. Out of control.


It's not at all like 'our university days' so fondly recollected as being messy. Not quite the same, unless you also became out of control and lost your temper to such an extent that you can relate to her actions mental state personally.


I can't/ But I have seen someone become that crazy, it's actually scary.


Psychologically, what is the make up of someone who chooses violence? There is definately something wrong with someone who makes the choices this woman has.


And if anybody would like to confirm that drugs do not affect your mental health at all, in any way over the long term, then please cite your source.


Otta...and no, I do not read the DM. I prefer books.

Jaywalker Anyone can ask for a review at if a lenient sentence has been given at a crown court,

If they have been tried for a number of serious crimes.

https://www.gov.uk/ask-crown-court-sentence-review


Drug/alcohol abuse is a common problem with doctors, where treatment programmes are set up.

There is a big difference between someone recognising they have a problem and someone

Having to face it because her freedom may be taken away. I think if doctors are practising after having been convicted it should be made public especially sex offenders.


http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/workinpsychiatry/psychiatristssupportservice/drugandalcoholproblems.aspx?theme=mobile


Oops forgot link

TE44 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Well no worries for posters supporting the

> hundreds of doctors still practising after

> conviction including sex offenders. Who knows,

> there may be a terrible relationship that caused

> it.

> Otta I hope your child never needs to see a

> paediatrition and your faced with a doctor the GMC

> have decided to let practice again. But not to

> worry it won't you won't have a right to know.



Why are you assuming that if soneone supports this woman, they automatically support every doctor that may have done something wrong in the past? Surely case by case rarher than blanket response.


And if my child requires a paediatrition amd that paediatrition does tgere job and treats her appropriately, I couldn't really care what they may have done.

Otta Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> TE44 Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----


> And if my child requires a paediatrition amd that

> paediatrition does tgere job and treats her

> appropriately, I couldn't really care what they

> may have done.



Dunno about that Otta. Isn't the cornerstone of the Hippocratic Oath to do no harm? That seems like a serious wrong-tuen to me.

"I find the relatively new power of the government to challenge sentences as too lenient (via the Attorney General) deeply disturbing. No danger of a growing heteronomy of the judiciary then."


Hardly new - been around since CJA 1988. And it's not really govt. - the AG is ultimately responsible for all prosecutions carried out by the Crown, and has a number of specified roles/tasks of which this is one. In practice all the work is done by the CPS and the hearing conducted by independent counsel. And the decision on whether sentence is unduly lenient is made by the Court of Appeal i.e. part of the judiciary, so not sure what your point re heteronomy is.

Otta, I do believe cases should be looked at individually, hence why I attached link to doctors

with substance abuse getting help. Where a crime

has been committed involving violence,or where others have been at risk especially children, I find it very difficult to get my head round a decision being made to allow a doctor to practice

who is on the sex register. I thinm this particular story has coincided with the paediatric Dulwich doctor convicted for sex offences and has

Highlighted to me a system I find questionable.

I am not assuming anyone supporting this woman supports every doctor, of course they are very

different crimes. If information is given out,

who knows, there may be many people like yourself

Where it would not be a problem, I would not want a panel having the sole decision with certain criminals.

I was about to say that perhaps some crimes should just be an automatic "never to practice again".


But then I thought what if a 16 year old boy had consensual sex with his 15 years and 10 months girlfriend, parents pressed charges and he got a record for statutory rape. For me he doesn't deserve to have his future taken away.


And I just can't see how it would be workable to any patient to be able to demand the history of any doctor before they decided whether they wanted their care or not.


Imagine you are due an op, you decide you don't want that doctor touching you. The NHS are unlikely to have a spare surgeon on standby, so you then have to wait another 3 months on the waiting list.


It may not be perfect, but I can't think of a better system than the DBS system that we currently have.

"If drugs affect someone so much that they pick up a knife and hurt someone, then personally i think it's extremely stupid to let it go so lightly."


What exactly do you want to happen? Imprisonment? Kicked out of university? Barred from ever working as a surgeon if she ever actually applied to do so (bearing in mind "James Sturman QC said his client's dreams of becoming a surgeon were 'almost impossible' as her conviction would have to be disclosed")? Be specific.


"Her behaviour is extremely unsettling. Out of control...there is definately something wrong with someone who makes the choices this woman has."


No shit. Hence the criminal conviction and the requirement to stay abstinent from drugs.


PS trust the Daily Mail to find a way to illustrate this story with a woman in a swimsuit.

"There is definately something wrong with someone who makes the choices this woman has."


Absolutely, so it's a question of what you mean by 'wrong' - mad or bad.


The use of 'choices' is interesting (and I'm not being critical as we all think this kind of thing sometimes). It implies that it was some kind of decision arrived at after a calm, rational consideration of all the options. Obviously we don't know all the details but the coverage has mentioned it happened in the context of drug and alcohol use and may have been triggered by a past abusive relationship when inhibitions were lowered, and there seemed to be hints in there about serious mental health problems (effects of prior abuse plus self-harming as well as cutting BF), with drugs and alcohol as a way of coping. In the circs a doctor would usually get the person off the substances before treating any mental health problems so it seems not unreasonable given it's not in the context of gang or other criminal activity.


Given all this it sounds like she has a lot of work to do and may be unlikely to qualify as a heart surgeon but perhaps she can build on her training to help people in another way.


Disagree with the comments about putting it down to youth though as she's 25 and that seems a bit infantilising - would we say the same if it was a man?

DaveR Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> "I find the relatively new power of the government

> to challenge sentences as too lenient (via the

> Attorney General) deeply disturbing. No danger of

> a growing heteronomy of the judiciary then."

>

> Hardly new - been around since CJA 1988. And it's

> not really govt. - the AG is ultimately

> responsible for all prosecutions carried out by

> the Crown, and has a number of specified

> roles/tasks of which this is one. In practice all

> the work is done by the CPS and the hearing

> conducted by independent counsel. And the

> decision on whether sentence is unduly lenient is

> made by the Court of Appeal i.e. part of the

> judiciary, so not sure what your point re

> heteronomy is.


Well, that is indeed how we differ. It is good that we do - and that we can express such differences. My view is that the state (the AG, who is a political appointment) should not be allowed to appeal the sentencing of the Crown Court. This was the case for really some time. I wonder why it was thought then to be a good thing, and now, for you, its opposite is thought just to be part of 'justice'?

Unduly lenient sentence referrals can arise in a number of ways:


Areas may consider the sentence unduly lenient;

interested parties including victims or the bereaved may contact the CPS;

media coverage may prompt the Area to consider the case;

the Attorney General may also be contacted directly, by MPs, peers, pressure groups or members of the public. In those cases, the AGO will request papers from the Area with casework responsibility for the case. http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/unduly_lenient_sentences/#a05


I don't see that anything precludes the AG from spontaneously taking an interest in a case, but in any event he is going to have to consider the CPS papers and opinion, or find himself at risk of having leave refused (as in the case mentioned in the "How the decision is made" section).

it's just providing a way for a higher court to review a sentence to see if it's ridiculously lenient. The sentencing power remains with the judiciary and not the executive, and the courts are perfectly happy to tell the prosecutors to sod off.

Yes thanks, that's what I thought.

Jaywalker I was confused by your post. Isn't all

The judiciary system political, I think you are

assuming, where someone may understand this is part of this system this automatically attaches it with "justice".

I'm sure the medical authorities who decide whether

a convicted doctor may continue practising will go through a procedure that will be covered by legal boundaries, (the law is political). I think it

should be more transparent in some cases after sentencing where the offenders are responsible

for others especially children.

Well, I can only repeat. Why was it previously NOT possible for the AG to appeal against the leniency of a sentence, but then it became possible!


A sight of Daily Mail headlines might be a clue.


The basic point is twofold. 1. The more autonomy the judiciary have the better - this autonomy is always under threat. The popular press now exert SO much influence on politicians that there need to be institutional checks against it 2. The review process tends to increase prison sentences when these are already completely out of control (see prison numbers as a percentage of the population cf other EU countries).


The judiciary is not ipso facto political: it is established as a separate power under the Crown. It can tell Theresa that she is exceeding her powers, and it recently did!

Jaywalker Do you believe the judiciary should also

have autonomy when reviews have have been too harsh. How long have the public had to go through AG office for review, i can't find anything regarding the crown telling May she's exceeding powers. Can you give a link please.

I believe Jaywalker you are speaking on the whole

not simply the AG position. The so called justice

system has always felt unfair to me, when looking at or bringing criminals to justice. Even when it

was easier to a bring a judicial review against those who believe they are untouchable, there was

A huge distance between understanding the injustices and the legal framework which often

Government ministers themselves can remove themselves and leave it to the lawyers to battle out. Of course its not so easy (unless you have the money) to go down this line with a government

that seems to be able to rule outside of there own laws.

TE44 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Jaywalker Do you believe the judiciary should

> also

> have autonomy when reviews have have been too

> harsh. How long have the public had to go through

> AG office for review, i can't find anything

> regarding the crown telling May she's exceeding

> powers. Can you give a link please.


Think of it this way: why can't a jury's decision be appealed? Governments are always flirting with the idea of abolishing juries, and at the margin they already have. But only in a very few cases (so far).


Generally it is better that someone is found not guilty when guilty than the reverse: the system should uphold this. And the same goes for sentences.


I agree that the judicial system is unfair. But there are many aspects to this unfairness: the predispositions and world-views of judges, the pantomime of the trial, the ill-educated nature of juries, the refusal to see social determination of crime (ressentiment and revenge, all the time).


As for the judiciary independent under the Crown, the Supreme Court is: it can and does tell the government that to act in a certain way exceeds its powers (as it did over Article 50 for example).

As it also told ruled against the Government

Regarding air quality in 2015 but it took a judicial review to force them to react and I wouldn't be surprised if they try to delay again.

It would be interesting to see how much it has cost

Going through legal appeals to keep information from the public. Sorry off topic.

"unfairness: the predispositions and world-views of judges, the pantomime of the trial, the ill-educated nature of juries, the refusal to see social determination of crime (ressentiment and revenge, all the time)."


Why do you think those prejudices only lead to unduly harsh sentences?


Why do you think it harms the independence of the judiciary when one part of the judiciary reviews the conduct of another part?


Why do you think juries are inferior to you?

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...