Appeal by nurse who had killed her husband

Ed Madden, BL, on an English High Court case in which a nurse who had pleaded guilty to the manslaughter of her husband appealed the removal of her name from the nursing register.
Wadanalahugedera Chandrasekera, who is originally from Sri Lanka, had been a nurse for all of her adult life. On October 22, 2005, while suffering from a depressive disorder and anxiety brought on by the conduct of her husband, she killed him with an axe.

In August 2006, having spent about nine months in custody on remand, she was given a three-year community punishment order, having pleaded guilty to manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility.
Ms Chandrasekera was initially suspended by the Interim Orders Committee of the Nursing and Midwifery Council. However, that suspension was lifted in December 2006 and she was allowed to return to work under supervision.
h4. Reviewed the situation
In May 2007, an Investigating Committee Panel of the Council reviewed the situation and decided to allow Ms Chandrasekera to continue to practise without restriction. In a letter to the nurse, the panel stated as follows:
“[We have] considered your case very carefully in view of the serious nature of the offences committed.
[We] considered information from a psychiatrist and your current employer that you are a safe practitioner. The previous panel concluded that you are not a danger to the public or yourself and this panel concurs with that opinion.”
However, significantly, the letter went on to state that:
“[A] panel of the Investigating Committee has still to decide whether there is a case to answer in relation to the allegation that has been made against you.”
On December 12, 2007, the Nursing and Midwifery Council’s Conduct and Com-petence Committee, having considered the conduct on Ms Chandrasekera’s part that had led to the conviction, decided to strike her name from the nursing register. Against that decision the nurse appealed to the High Court, contending inter alia that the sanction was excessive.
When the case came on for hearing in the High Court in January 2009, the Court heard that Ms Chandrasekera had suffered both physical and psychological abuse from her husband over a number of years. The following story emerged.
h4. Moved out
In or about 1990, Ms Chan-drasekera had invited a niece, Suseema, known as Dammika, to come and stay in the family home. During 1991, her husband moved out of the marital bedroom into a separate room in the house.
Ms Chandrasekera began to have suspicions about the relationship between her husband and her niece. In 1999, the husband left her and subsequently went on holiday with Dammika.
In 2004, the husband informed Ms Chandrasekera that he intended to divorce her. She was devastated and suffered an immediate panic attack. She was unable to work for a time and was emotionally very labile.
She then discovered that her husband was living in the same area as Dammika. She knew that her niece had given birth to a daughter in 2001 but thought that this was as a result of a casual relationship. She only realised the truth when Dammika’s daughter referred to her husband as her ‘daddy’.
In the early hours of October 21, 2005, in a state of extreme distress and desperation, Ms Chandrasekera went to the house where her husband and niece were living. It was not a pleasant encounter. The following evening, her husband arrived at the family home.
Ms Chandrasekera had hoped that her son would confront him with the truth about his relationship with Dammika, but the son did not intervene.
h4. Struck him three times
When her husband began to leave, Ms Chandrasekera picked up an axe. She followed him outside, shouting at him to tell the truth about his relationship with her niece. However, he ignored her and began to walk away. As he did so, Ms Chandrasekera struck him three times with the axe, killing him.
In due course, the nurse was brought before the Criminal Courts, and on legal advice, pleaded guilty to a charge of manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility. In passing sentence, the judge said it was clear that apart from the offence of which she had been convicted, Ms Chandrasekera had lived an honourable and hardworking life, and was widely respected. He accepted that her remorse was ‘genuine and heartfelt’.
Taking into account that she had already spent nine months in custody on remand, he did not consider that a further period of imprisonment was appropriate. The Court instead imposed a three-year community punishment order.
h4. Sad and difficult
Giving the judgment of the High Court in the appeal against the order of erasure, Mr Justice Symons said that the case was one which was both sad and difficult. He had considerable sympathy for Ms Chandrasekera ‘who was clearly driven to commit a violent crime’.
Nonetheless, the Council’s Conduct and Competence Committee was faced with a nurse who had committed a violent crime, using an axe. They had to have regard not only to the nurse’s own interests, but also to the wider interest of preserving the reputation of the nursing profession.
The Committee had made it clear that while the nature of Ms Chandrasekera’s conviction on a criminal charge was a very serious matter, her responsibility for her actions was diminished by her mental state. They had accepted evidence that she was a good and caring nurse who had presented relevant and appropriate testimonials.
The Committee had app-roached the question of sanction with these matters in mind. However, they were satisfied that the nurse’s conduct in killing her husband with an axe was fundamentally incompatible with her name being included on the nursing register.
h4. Reaching a decision
Referring to the fact that Ms Chandrasekera had not yet completed the three-year community punishment order imposed by the Criminal Court, the judge said he did not consider that the Committee was wrong to take that into account in reaching a decision on sanction.
The fact that the nurse was ‘still on probation’ following a conviction for manslaughter involving violence — whatever the mitigation — was a proper matter for the Committee to have in mind when deciding on an appropriate sanction.
Mr Justice Symons said that having carefully considered the arguments put forward by counsel on behalf of Ms Chandrasekera, he was not satisfied that the sanction imposed was excessive, disproportionate, or clearly wrong.
The fact that a differently constituted committee might have reached a different conclusion, or that indeed the High Court, looking at the matter afresh, might also have reached a different conclusion was not to the point.
The Court went on to dismiss the nurse’s appeal.
Reference:
[2009] EWHC 144 (Admin).