Debate contribution: Statutory Duty of Candour
Debate contribution by Mr Pat Sheehan on .
- MLA
- Mr Pat Sheehan
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 11 November 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Statutory Duty of Candour
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4667890
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-Leas-Cheann Comhairle.
There seems to be some misunderstanding about what an individual duty of candour is — one with criminal sanctions. It is not about penalising doctors or other medical professionals who make genuine mistakes. It is about ensuring that there is a culture of transparency, because, for the past 20-odd years or the past 30 years, we have seen a culture of cover-up time and time again. Today, I want to talk about one case, which is that of young Claire Roberts. I want to acknowledge her parents, Alan and Jennifer, who are in the Public Gallery today. As Nuala McAllister said, they have been trying to get to the truth for nearly 30 years now. Let me just give a recap of what happened. Claire was nine years old when she was admitted to the Hospital for Sick Children in Belfast with vomiting and lethargy. Her bloods were tested, and it was noticed that her sodium was low: not dangerously so, but it should have been checked the next day. She had been admitted on 21 October, and those levels should have been checked the next morning, on the Tuesday. They were not, and that was the first mistake. She was then treated with a number of medications that, because of her condition, she should not have been given. She was prescribed three medications and was overdosed on two of those, making the situation worse again. Her family were by her bedside for most of that Tuesday. That evening — around 9.00 pm, I think — they needed to go home, because they have two other children. None of the staff in the hospital explained to them how seriously ill Claire was. Later on in the evening, after the family had left, Claire went into respiratory failure and was taken to the paediatric intensive care unit, by which time it is believed that she was already dead. The consultant who was in charge of Claire's care did not see her for the whole time that she was there on the Monday and Tuesday. She only arrived in the children's hospital at 4.00 am on the Wednesday, and she immediately knew what had happened. Claire had been put on intravenous fluids, and, because her sodium was low, those fluids further diluted the sodium in her system, leading to hyponatraemia and the brain swelling that caused her death. The consultant did not notify the coroner, as she should have, and did not order the post-mortem that she should have: she ordered a post-mortem of just Claire's brain. The family were told that Claire died as a result of a bug in her stomach travelling to her brain. They lied, barefaced, to the family. The family were obviously devastated from having lost their daughter but believed what they had been told by health professionals.
I will.
Absolutely. Time prevents me from going into all the details of the case; I am just going over the main points. Seven or eight years later, Alan and Jennifer watched a programme entitled 'When Hospitals Kill', which was produced by UTV. It struck both of them that what was being discussed in that programme, which was about other children who had died from hyponatraemia, was the same thing that had happened to Claire. They went to the Belfast Trust and demanded that the coroner be informed. The Belfast Trust was caught with its pants down and had no option but to go to the coroner. You would think that, at that stage, the Belfast Trust would have said, "Right, we've been caught here: let's be open and transparent. Let's tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth" —.
I will take a quick intervention; I have not got much time.
I agree with the Member 100%. You would think that the Belfast Trust would then have been open and honest. A team was set up to collate information to give to the coroner. Alan Roberts says that, between 2004 and 2006, false and misleading information was supplied to the coroner. In 2006, the coroner returned findings that were not true or accurate. In the aftermath of the O'Hara report, and following the family's campaigning, the family got another inquest in 2019. The findings from that inquest are that Claire Roberts died as a result of hyponatraemia, not as a result of a virus travelling from her stomach to her brain or for any other reason.
We need an individual duty of candour with criminal sanctions. That is the only way in which to bring about a culture of openness and transparency.
774 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.04 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.92).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.04 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.04 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.92 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.04 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.73 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.23 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.02 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.01 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:35 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.