August 29, 2025
A scrutiny sub-panel has recently been formed to consider proposed changes to the Regulation of Care (Standards and Requirements) (Jersey) Regulations 2018 (the “2018 Regulations”). Whilst a number of changes are proposed, there is one in particular which will have an impact on Islanders’ ability to bring clinical negligence claims.
That change concerns the use to which duty of candour letters might be put in the context of proceedings before Jersey’s Courts.
What is the duty of candour?
Regulation 6 of the 2018 Regulations currently imposes a duty on registered providers of health care services to act with openness and transparency towards those to whom they provide their services. As part of that duty a health care provider is required to notify their patient, or their representatives, of any unintended or unexpected serious incident affecting the patient’s health or wellbeing. They are also required to provide reasonable support to the patient.
At present such notice is typically provided to patients initially during a meeting and followed up by a letter. Such letters are called “duty of candour letters”.
The use of duty of candour letters as evidence
Duty of candour letters will often include a wealth of information concerning the shortcomings in the care that a patient has received whilst stopping short of making any formal admissions of legal liability. Accordingly, whilst they can be of great assistance in formulating the basis of a claim against a healthcare provider where substandard care has been provided and may be used to extract a formal admission of liability from a healthcare provider it does not of itself amount to such an admission.
They are nonetheless currently considered to be admissible evidence which a plaintiff can deploy in support of their case.
The proposed changes
The proposed changes to Regulation 6 of the 2018 Regulations are set out in the Draft Regulation of Care (Jersey) Amendment Law 202- (the “Draft Law”). In addition to setting out more detailed guidance as to the way patients are to be notified of incidents, the most significant amendment provides that any apology contained within a duty of candour letter will be considered inadmissible for the purposes of establishing liability in any legal proceedings.
So what’s the problem?
The terms of the Draft Law go further than equivalent English legislation which provides that apologies contained in duty of candour letters cannot, of themselves, be relied upon as an admission of liability by a healthcare professional. Accordingly, in England whilst they are not considered determinative, apologies given in a duty of candour letter can nonetheless be relied upon by those bringing claims to corroborate other evidence relevant to the question of liability.
By rendering apologies contained in letters of candour inadmissible, the Draft Law will deny plaintiffs - who may have suffered life changing injuries as a result of medical negligence - the ability to rely on evidence which is plainly relevant to their case. In doing so, the Draft Law simultaneously mandates candour yet strips expressions of candour of their meaning. An apology loses its weight if it cannot be connected to redress. Patients may rightly wonder: if these letters don’t “count” in legal contexts, what purpose do they serve? An empty gesture, or PR exercise?
Beyond legal implications, there is a human element that must not be forgotten. Patients who have recently been interviewed by the Jersey Evening Post have described receiving a duty-of-candour letter as “comforting” and a necessary step toward closure or healing. Revoking the evidential value of duty of candour letters undermines that emotional reassurance and may retraumatise plaintiffs seeking validation.
Moreover, the high prevalence of anxiety and depression among patients awaiting legal resolution makes the supportive function of these letters all the more important.
Conclusion
Preserving the ability of patients to rely on apologies contained in duty of candour letters in clinical negligence claims is not just a legal technicality, it is a matter of fairness, transparency, and respect. Apologies in such letters serve as affirmations of truth and humanity, providing victims with validation and a foundation on which to build their case. Denying their admissibility breaks trust, disempowers plaintiffs, and can only serve to weaken the integrity of Jersey’s healthcare accountability.
Duty of candour letters can also play an important part in obtaining an early admission of liability from a negligent healthcare professional, or to otherwise encourage them to engage in early negotiations without the need to issue proceedings which in turn can result in significant costs savings.
As the sub‑panel prepares to scrutinise the proposed legislation, the broader question must be asked: will Jersey maintain a more open, compassionate, and just healthcare response, or retreat behind legal strictures that render apologies hollow?
It’s not too late to choose the former and to ensure apology means something more than words on paper.
A scrutiny sub-panel has recently been formed to consider proposed changes to the Regulation of Care (Standards and Requirements) (Jersey) Regulations 2018 (the “2018 Regulations”). Whilst a number of changes are proposed, there is one in particular which will have an impact on Islanders’ ability to bring clinical negligence claims.
That change concerns the use to which duty of candour letters might be put in the context of proceedings before Jersey’s Courts.
What is the duty of candour?
Regulation 6 of the 2018 Regulations currently imposes a duty on registered providers of health care services to act with openness and transparency towards those to whom they provide their services. As part of that duty a health care provider is required to notify their patient, or their representatives, of any unintended or unexpected serious incident affecting the patient’s health or wellbeing. They are also required to provide reasonable support to the patient.
At present such notice is typically provided to patients initially during a meeting and followed up by a letter. Such letters are called “duty of candour letters”.
The use of duty of candour letters as evidence
Duty of candour letters will often include a wealth of information concerning the shortcomings in the care that a patient has received whilst stopping short of making any formal admissions of legal liability. Accordingly, whilst they can be of great assistance in formulating the basis of a claim against a healthcare provider where substandard care has been provided and may be used to extract a formal admission of liability from a healthcare provider it does not of itself amount to such an admission.
They are nonetheless currently considered to be admissible evidence which a plaintiff can deploy in support of their case.
The proposed changes
The proposed changes to Regulation 6 of the 2018 Regulations are set out in the Draft Regulation of Care (Jersey) Amendment Law 202- (the “Draft Law”). In addition to setting out more detailed guidance as to the way patients are to be notified of incidents, the most significant amendment provides that any apology contained within a duty of candour letter will be considered inadmissible for the purposes of establishing liability in any legal proceedings.
So what’s the problem?
The terms of the Draft Law go further than equivalent English legislation which provides that apologies contained in duty of candour letters cannot, of themselves, be relied upon as an admission of liability by a healthcare professional. Accordingly, in England whilst they are not considered determinative, apologies given in a duty of candour letter can nonetheless be relied upon by those bringing claims to corroborate other evidence relevant to the question of liability.
By rendering apologies contained in letters of candour inadmissible, the Draft Law will deny plaintiffs - who may have suffered life changing injuries as a result of medical negligence - the ability to rely on evidence which is plainly relevant to their case. In doing so, the Draft Law simultaneously mandates candour yet strips expressions of candour of their meaning. An apology loses its weight if it cannot be connected to redress. Patients may rightly wonder: if these letters don’t “count” in legal contexts, what purpose do they serve? An empty gesture, or PR exercise?
Beyond legal implications, there is a human element that must not be forgotten. Patients who have recently been interviewed by the Jersey Evening Post have described receiving a duty-of-candour letter as “comforting” and a necessary step toward closure or healing. Revoking the evidential value of duty of candour letters undermines that emotional reassurance and may retraumatise plaintiffs seeking validation.
Moreover, the high prevalence of anxiety and depression among patients awaiting legal resolution makes the supportive function of these letters all the more important.
Conclusion
Preserving the ability of patients to rely on apologies contained in duty of candour letters in clinical negligence claims is not just a legal technicality, it is a matter of fairness, transparency, and respect. Apologies in such letters serve as affirmations of truth and humanity, providing victims with validation and a foundation on which to build their case. Denying their admissibility breaks trust, disempowers plaintiffs, and can only serve to weaken the integrity of Jersey’s healthcare accountability.
Duty of candour letters can also play an important part in obtaining an early admission of liability from a negligent healthcare professional, or to otherwise encourage them to engage in early negotiations without the need to issue proceedings which in turn can result in significant costs savings.
As the sub‑panel prepares to scrutinise the proposed legislation, the broader question must be asked: will Jersey maintain a more open, compassionate, and just healthcare response, or retreat behind legal strictures that render apologies hollow?
It’s not too late to choose the former and to ensure apology means something more than words on paper.
A scrutiny sub-panel has recently been formed to consider proposed changes to the Regulation of Care (Standards and Requirements) (Jersey) Regulations 2018 (the “2018 Regulations”). Whilst a number of changes are proposed, there is one in particular which will have an impact on Islanders’ ability to bring clinical negligence claims.
That change concerns the use to which duty of candour letters might be put in the context of proceedings before Jersey’s Courts.
What is the duty of candour?
Regulation 6 of the 2018 Regulations currently imposes a duty on registered providers of health care services to act with openness and transparency towards those to whom they provide their services. As part of that duty a health care provider is required to notify their patient, or their representatives, of any unintended or unexpected serious incident affecting the patient’s health or wellbeing. They are also required to provide reasonable support to the patient.
At present such notice is typically provided to patients initially during a meeting and followed up by a letter. Such letters are called “duty of candour letters”.
The use of duty of candour letters as evidence
Duty of candour letters will often include a wealth of information concerning the shortcomings in the care that a patient has received whilst stopping short of making any formal admissions of legal liability. Accordingly, whilst they can be of great assistance in formulating the basis of a claim against a healthcare provider where substandard care has been provided and may be used to extract a formal admission of liability from a healthcare provider it does not of itself amount to such an admission.
They are nonetheless currently considered to be admissible evidence which a plaintiff can deploy in support of their case.
The proposed changes
The proposed changes to Regulation 6 of the 2018 Regulations are set out in the Draft Regulation of Care (Jersey) Amendment Law 202- (the “Draft Law”). In addition to setting out more detailed guidance as to the way patients are to be notified of incidents, the most significant amendment provides that any apology contained within a duty of candour letter will be considered inadmissible for the purposes of establishing liability in any legal proceedings.
So what’s the problem?
The terms of the Draft Law go further than equivalent English legislation which provides that apologies contained in duty of candour letters cannot, of themselves, be relied upon as an admission of liability by a healthcare professional. Accordingly, in England whilst they are not considered determinative, apologies given in a duty of candour letter can nonetheless be relied upon by those bringing claims to corroborate other evidence relevant to the question of liability.
By rendering apologies contained in letters of candour inadmissible, the Draft Law will deny plaintiffs - who may have suffered life changing injuries as a result of medical negligence - the ability to rely on evidence which is plainly relevant to their case. In doing so, the Draft Law simultaneously mandates candour yet strips expressions of candour of their meaning. An apology loses its weight if it cannot be connected to redress. Patients may rightly wonder: if these letters don’t “count” in legal contexts, what purpose do they serve? An empty gesture, or PR exercise?
Beyond legal implications, there is a human element that must not be forgotten. Patients who have recently been interviewed by the Jersey Evening Post have described receiving a duty-of-candour letter as “comforting” and a necessary step toward closure or healing. Revoking the evidential value of duty of candour letters undermines that emotional reassurance and may retraumatise plaintiffs seeking validation.
Moreover, the high prevalence of anxiety and depression among patients awaiting legal resolution makes the supportive function of these letters all the more important.
Conclusion
Preserving the ability of patients to rely on apologies contained in duty of candour letters in clinical negligence claims is not just a legal technicality, it is a matter of fairness, transparency, and respect. Apologies in such letters serve as affirmations of truth and humanity, providing victims with validation and a foundation on which to build their case. Denying their admissibility breaks trust, disempowers plaintiffs, and can only serve to weaken the integrity of Jersey’s healthcare accountability.
Duty of candour letters can also play an important part in obtaining an early admission of liability from a negligent healthcare professional, or to otherwise encourage them to engage in early negotiations without the need to issue proceedings which in turn can result in significant costs savings.
As the sub‑panel prepares to scrutinise the proposed legislation, the broader question must be asked: will Jersey maintain a more open, compassionate, and just healthcare response, or retreat behind legal strictures that render apologies hollow?
It’s not too late to choose the former and to ensure apology means something more than words on paper.
A scrutiny sub-panel has recently been formed to consider proposed changes to the Regulation of Care (Standards and Requirements) (Jersey) Regulations 2018 (the “2018 Regulations”). Whilst a number of changes are proposed, there is one in particular which will have an impact on Islanders’ ability to bring clinical negligence claims.
That change concerns the use to which duty of candour letters might be put in the context of proceedings before Jersey’s Courts.
What is the duty of candour?
Regulation 6 of the 2018 Regulations currently imposes a duty on registered providers of health care services to act with openness and transparency towards those to whom they provide their services. As part of that duty a health care provider is required to notify their patient, or their representatives, of any unintended or unexpected serious incident affecting the patient’s health or wellbeing. They are also required to provide reasonable support to the patient.
At present such notice is typically provided to patients initially during a meeting and followed up by a letter. Such letters are called “duty of candour letters”.
The use of duty of candour letters as evidence
Duty of candour letters will often include a wealth of information concerning the shortcomings in the care that a patient has received whilst stopping short of making any formal admissions of legal liability. Accordingly, whilst they can be of great assistance in formulating the basis of a claim against a healthcare provider where substandard care has been provided and may be used to extract a formal admission of liability from a healthcare provider it does not of itself amount to such an admission.
They are nonetheless currently considered to be admissible evidence which a plaintiff can deploy in support of their case.
The proposed changes
The proposed changes to Regulation 6 of the 2018 Regulations are set out in the Draft Regulation of Care (Jersey) Amendment Law 202- (the “Draft Law”). In addition to setting out more detailed guidance as to the way patients are to be notified of incidents, the most significant amendment provides that any apology contained within a duty of candour letter will be considered inadmissible for the purposes of establishing liability in any legal proceedings.
So what’s the problem?
The terms of the Draft Law go further than equivalent English legislation which provides that apologies contained in duty of candour letters cannot, of themselves, be relied upon as an admission of liability by a healthcare professional. Accordingly, in England whilst they are not considered determinative, apologies given in a duty of candour letter can nonetheless be relied upon by those bringing claims to corroborate other evidence relevant to the question of liability.
By rendering apologies contained in letters of candour inadmissible, the Draft Law will deny plaintiffs - who may have suffered life changing injuries as a result of medical negligence - the ability to rely on evidence which is plainly relevant to their case. In doing so, the Draft Law simultaneously mandates candour yet strips expressions of candour of their meaning. An apology loses its weight if it cannot be connected to redress. Patients may rightly wonder: if these letters don’t “count” in legal contexts, what purpose do they serve? An empty gesture, or PR exercise?
Beyond legal implications, there is a human element that must not be forgotten. Patients who have recently been interviewed by the Jersey Evening Post have described receiving a duty-of-candour letter as “comforting” and a necessary step toward closure or healing. Revoking the evidential value of duty of candour letters undermines that emotional reassurance and may retraumatise plaintiffs seeking validation.
Moreover, the high prevalence of anxiety and depression among patients awaiting legal resolution makes the supportive function of these letters all the more important.
Conclusion
Preserving the ability of patients to rely on apologies contained in duty of candour letters in clinical negligence claims is not just a legal technicality, it is a matter of fairness, transparency, and respect. Apologies in such letters serve as affirmations of truth and humanity, providing victims with validation and a foundation on which to build their case. Denying their admissibility breaks trust, disempowers plaintiffs, and can only serve to weaken the integrity of Jersey’s healthcare accountability.
Duty of candour letters can also play an important part in obtaining an early admission of liability from a negligent healthcare professional, or to otherwise encourage them to engage in early negotiations without the need to issue proceedings which in turn can result in significant costs savings.
As the sub‑panel prepares to scrutinise the proposed legislation, the broader question must be asked: will Jersey maintain a more open, compassionate, and just healthcare response, or retreat behind legal strictures that render apologies hollow?
It’s not too late to choose the former and to ensure apology means something more than words on paper.