Ex-midwife Lisa Barrett found not guilty of two counts of manslaughter

Ex-midwife Lisa Barrett has been found not guilty of two counts of manslaughter, over the deaths of two baby boys in 2011 and 2012.

• READ JUSTICE VANSTONE’S FINDINGS HERE
• Barrett downplayed homebirth dangers, court hears
• Barrett has denied responsibility for the deaths of two babies

Former midwife Lisa Barrett has been found not guilty of two counts of manslaughter over her involvement in the homebirths of two babies who died soon after they were born.

In the first case of its kind in Australia, Lisa Barrett, 52, pleaded not guilty over the deaths of Tully Kavanagh in 2011 and another baby boy in 2012, who cannot be identified.

In the Supreme Court on Tuesday Justice Ann Vanstone cleared her on both counts, finding prosecutors failed to prove criminal negligence in either case.

“While I have found that the accused’s conduct in relation to the labours of both women fell short of that of a reasonably competent midwife, in neither case has it been proved beyond reasonable doubt to be grossly or culpably negligent as the law of manslaughter by criminal negligence requires,” Justice Vanstone said.

“Although I find the accused’s conduct was less than competent, I am not satisfied that her conduct merits criminal sanction.

“My verdict in relation to each count is, ‘not guilty’.”

Lisa Barrett outside court on Tuesday. Picture: AAP / Keryn Stevens

Barrett had been hired to provide antenatal and labour assistance for both women.

Tully was the second of twins born at her parent’s home on October 7, 2011, but died two days later. The other unnamed baby was born at home on December 30, 2012 and died after his life support was turned off.

In her reasons for verdict, Justice Vanstone found that Barrett owed both women “a duty of care” where “the standard of conduct required was that of a reasonably competent midwife”.

“Despite the accused ceasing to be registered as a midwife, (she) undertook the duties of a midwife, and used her midwifery skills in the course of attending (both women) during their pregnancies and during their respective labours,” she said.

You can read the judge’s comments and reasoning here

After her deregistration as a midwife in March 2011 Barrett called herself a birth advocate. Laws have since been changed in South Australia banning anyone other than a registered medical practitioner or midwife from assisting a labour or birth.

At trial, prosecutors alleged Barrett had failed to tell either mother of “the true dangers they were facing” and had deliberately “downplayed the risks” of their high-risk births.

Sandi McDonald SC had alleged Barrett was criminally negligent because she failed to properly advise the women of the risks prior to birth, or the urgent need to transfer to hospital when further problems were encountered during their labours.

She said the two babies had “died as a direct result of the manner in which they were born at home and Barrett’s gross negligence meant neither baby was alive today”.

Justice Vanstone said she was not satisfied that even if she had been given appropriate advice that Tully’s mother would be “disuaded” from a homebirth, while the other mother was “disinclined” to have a hospital birth. Both women previously endured traumatic hospital births, causing them to seek out homebirths.

Lisa Barrett was found not guilty of both counts of manslaughter. Picture: AAP / Keryn Stevens

In the case of Tully, Justice Vanstone said Barrett had “a limited window of time” to make a decision about transferring to hospital after the first twin, a healthy girl, was born “and much pressure on her to make it”.

She said Barrett’s response was “to do very little” but given expert evidence she was not satisfied Barrett was criminally negligent.

In the case of the other baby, Justice Vanstone said Barrett should have alerted the mother to worrying signs but “failed to act” and advise her to transfer to hospital sooner. She could not be certain of the period of inaction and therefore “cannot determine whether, by acting earlier and strongly advising a transfer, (the baby’s) life would have been saved”.

She said Barrett’s “even demeanor” meant any warnings she gave either women when “things were not progressing to plan” meant they may have failed to give appropriate weight to the warnings.

Barrett had denied responsibility for the deaths of the two babies at trial, arguing their mothers’ decision to choose a homebirth had “led to both of them losing their babies”.

In closing submissions, Scott Henchliffe, for Barrett, said there “was no law that made anything that Barrett did, that we have heard about in this case, illegal”.

He said the two mothers whose babies died had “self-serving memories” of their pregnancies and births and held Barrett responsible for the outcomes.

“The decision to homebirth was their own and in the most general sense it was that decision which, when the risks eventuated, led to both them losing their babies,” he said.

“It’s only human nature for them to seek to put themselves in the light where they carry less guilt or blame or responsibility for what ultimately occurred.”

Barrett, who did not react when the verdict was delivered, did not comment outide court.