Boy, 8, died after Boots optician who is on trial for manslaughter failed to spot fluid build-up
Photographs taken before Honey Rose examined him showed there were abnormalities in both of Vinnie Barker's eyes
THE death of an eight-year-old boy could have been prevented if an eye specialist had "done her job properly", a court has heard.
Vincent Barker, known as Vinnie, died on July 13 2012 - around five months after he was taken to have a routine eye test at Boots the Opticians in Upper Brook Street in Ipswich, Suffolk.
The prosecution alleges if the woman who conducted his eye test had spotted certain signs, the child would have been sent for treatment and could have been saved.
The conduct of locum optometrist Honey Rose, 35, fell so far below the standards expected it was "criminal", prosecutor Jonathan Rees QC said.
Rose, from Newham, east London, is charged with gross negligence manslaughter.
If she is found guilty, she could face life in prison.
Mr Rees told Ipswich Crown Court: "The prosecution allege that Vinnie's death was preventable and would have been prevented had the defendant, Ms Rose, done her job properly."
The jury heard about the morning Vinnie's mother, Joanne Barker, took him and his younger sister for the routine eye tests.
Vinnie's mother, Joanne Barker, today told the jury she took her children to have their eyes tested as she had feared Vinne might need glasses, as she had been given them at the age of eight after suffering migraines.
She said she took them to the Boots store in Ipswich, Suffolk, and added the receptionist said camera images taken of their eyes would make them "look like the planet Mars."
At the start of the test, Mrs Barker recalls that she told Rose that Vinnie had suffered headaches over the previous Christmas, the court heard.
When it came to the examination itself, Mr Rees said Mrs Barker "recalls that Vinnie sat still and behaved perfectly, doing everything that he was asked".
He told the jury that Vinnie showed no signs of being sensitive to the light and "nothing was mentioned by the defendant about there being any problem whilst conducting the tests or examination".
Mr Rees said Mrs Barker cannot recall Rose making reference to the retinal photographs that had been taken or calling them up on the computer screen.
Mrs Barker told the court her son often played football on flood lit pitches and also had hundreds of photos taken but never complained of an aversion to light.
She said she was told by Rose he did not need any treatment which surprised her as she had suffered from eye sight problems at his age and she was expecting he would require glasses.
Mrs Barker said: "I left thinking his vision and health was perfectly normal."
When asked if she had any knowledge of Vinnie's condition before he collapsed she replied "no".
During cross examination, Ian Stern QC, defending Rose, asked if Mrs Barker left the eye tests in the view that her children had been given a full eye test.
Mrs Barker accepted this and said: "I would assume is as any parent if there was a problem that someone would have informed me."
Mr Stern asked Mrs Barker Vinnie had a history of photophobia which she denied.
He noted that Vinnie was reported to have suffered from headaches during Christmas 2011 - two months before the fateful eye test - at a time when the family home was full of bright Christmas lights.
Mrs Barker acknowledged this but said the headaches soon passed and reiterated that she did not link the two.
She added: "I took the Christmas lights down before new year's day, the day when his headaches were worst."
Mr Rees, prosecuting, said Rose failed to detect the swollen disc in either eye, despite photographs taken ahead of her examination of Vinnie showing abnormalities.
He added: "Indeed, it was the defendant's assessment that he needed no treatment whatsoever.
"The prosecution say that the abnormalities in his optic discs would have been obvious to any competent optometrist who had examined them."
He said this would have led to him being "urgently referred for further investigation" because of swollen optic discs signifying that the patient may be suffering from papilloedema, "which is known to be a life-threatening condition".
The court heard that on the day he died Vinnie was sick in school and his mother was contacted about collecting him.
He was brought home but deteriorated during the afternoon and later that night he was taken to hospital.
Paramedics and an emergency team tried to resuscitate Vinnie but he was formally pronounced dead at Ipswich Hospital.
RELATED STORIES
The jury was told that Rose was interviewed under caution by two police officers in March 2013.
Mr Rees said that she told officers she wasn't sure how to use the retinal photography equipment at the Upper Brook Street opticians where she worked as a locum self-employed optometrist.
She said she relied on colleagues to take the images and produce them on her computer screen.
Mr Rees added that when she was shown the retinal images taken of Vinnie on February 15 2012, she said they were not the ones she had seen because they showed a "completely pathological problem" which would have caused her to make an emergency referral that day.
The court heard that she said it looked like the findings she recorded that day related to 2011 images of Vinnie's eyes, and she suggested that she had been shown those instead of the 2012 images.
She also suggested Vinnie was photophobic and showed "poor fixation" which made it difficult to examine his eyes.
However Mr Rees said the prosecution does not accept this.
He added that Vinnie had never shown any indication of photophobia or lack of cooperation during previous examinations.
He said: "The explanations she advances for her failure to inspect Vinnie's optic discs involve other people obstructed her - Vinnie by reacting to light and having poor fixation; a colleague for not showing her the right images.
"However, the sad truth is as the prosecution suggests that the fault lies with her."
Rose also told officers she came to the UK in 2005 and in 2007 did an optometry course at City University.
Jurors heard that post-mortem examinations showed the cause of death was hydrocephalus - a build-up of fluid in the brain which led to an increase in pressure within his skull and, ultimately, his collapse and death.
If he had been referred to a doctor, this fluid would have been identified and treated, argue the prosecution.
Mr Rees said: “This procedure would have prevented him from dying on July 13 and in essence he would have continued to live his life as a normal young boy.
"At the heart of the prosecution case against the defendant is the allegation that the defendant's failure to detect the swollen optic discs and refer Vinnie on for further investigation was grossly negligent - key phrase in this case - on her part."
The jury heard that Rose was not a permanent member of staff at the branch but she was working there that day and had done so previously.
Mr Rees said it is agreed that Vinnie's death would have been prevented had he been the subject of an urgent referral following his eye test.
Ms Rose denies the charges.
The trial continues.
We pay for your stories! Do you have a story for The Sun Online news team? Email us at [email protected] or call 0207 782 4368.