A judgment has been released concerning the case of Andrew Nisbet, who pleaded guilty last year to stabbing his mother, Pamela, in August 2019 during a dispute about his continued residence at the family home in St Peter.
Following the conclusion of the criminal case, which saw Nisbet (41) sentenced to be detained at a secure mental-health facility in the UK, his case was heard by the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service in Manchester earlier this month.
The judgment – in which some sections relating to Nisbet’s case were redacted – concluded that while the panel had some sympathy for Nisbet on a personal level, members emphasised the need to maintain public confidence in the medical profession.
The judgment stated: ‘In concluding that erasure was the only proportionate sanction, the tribunal considered the greatest weight had to be given to the need to maintain public confidence in the profession.
‘The death of [Mrs Nisbet] at Dr Nisbet’s hand in these circumstances was a fundamental departure from the principles of good medical practice and incompatible with continued registration.’
The judgment highlighted the guidance regarding sanctions, which refer to striking off being appropriate in cases where a doctor’s behaviour had been incompatible with their profession, serious harm had been done to others and the offence under consideration had involved violence.
The tribunal heard that Nisbet had qualified as a Bachelor of Medicine and Surgery from the University of Wales in 2002, obtaining specialist registration in clinical radiology in August 2013.
The judgment stated: ‘Although originally charged with murder with manslaughter in the alternative, the Crown, in the light of the XXX [redacted] evidence, accepted the defendant’s plea of guilty to manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility in that his XXX [redacted] responsibility for the killing was substantially impaired.’
The tribunal heard that Nisbet had experienced difficulties for some years interacting with others, including patients and work colleagues, leading to his employers in Scotland adjusting his arrangements so that he worked remotely, rather than directly with patients.
Nisbet accepted that members of the public would be appalled by what he had done, panel members were told.
Consideration was given to mitigation, including a number of favourable testimonials, Nisbet’s full admissions from the outset of the hearing and engagement with his regulator and the court proceedings.
The panel imposed an immediate order of suspension to cover the 28-day appeals period, after which erasure orders become permanent and Nisbet would be permanently struck off from the General Medical Council’s register.