Crown opens case in Jayant Patel manslaughter trial Former Bundaberg surgeon Jayant Patel. JAYANT Patel wrongly diagnosed an elderly patient and then performed major surgery the patient was "unlikely to survive" that failed to treat his ongoing rectal bleeding, the Brisbane Supreme Court has heard. Patel, 62, has pleaded not guilty to the manslaughter of Mervyn John Morris, 75, who died three weeks after bowel surgery on June 14, 2003. Prosecutor Peter Davis SC opened the Crown's case in five parts on Friday. He told the jury the Crown did not suggest for a moment that Patel unlawfully killed his patient with intent, instead pointing to criminal negligence. "A failure to take reasonable care and or have reasonable skill leaves the doctor criminally liable for the consequences of that negligence," he said. The accused was under a legal obligation to take reasonable care and reasonable skill in administering treatment to Mr Morris. The court heard Patel performed a Hartmann's procedure to remove a segment of Mr Morris' bowel on May 23, 2003, which meant the patient would defecate through a colostomy bag via his abdomen. Mr Davis said the operation was performed because Mr Morris had been suffering rectal bleeding. Mr Davis argued the bleeding was caused by damage to Mr Morris' rectum caused by "radiation proctitis" following treatment he had for prostate cancer. He told the jury it was "inappropriate" for Patel to remove part of his patient's sigmoid colon because the cause of his rectal bleeding was never properly determined. Mr Morris continued bleeding from his rectum after the procedure, Mr Davis said. "The defence might say Mr Morris was suffering from rectal bleeding ... and that bleeding was coming from that part of the colon that was removed, so that's why it was removed," he said. The Crown says no, the accused never actually worked out whether that bit that is now missing was where the bleeding came from. If the bleeding point could not be determined ... why is part of Mr Morris being removed? Mr Davis said Patel's patient had a heart condition and angina, potentially had liver cancer and should have been conservatively treated with blood transfusions instead of invasive surgery. He said the jury would hear expert evidence that indicated because of Mr Morris's age, his liver problems and heart condition he was "quite frankly unlikely to survive the operation." The court heard Mr Morris's health declined after the first procedure Patel performed on him and following a second operation on May 30 to repair a dehiscence or "breaking open" of the original surgical wound. Mr Davis said Patel should have widened the "stoma" where the colostomy bag slotted into due to a blockage at the same time, but did not. He detailed Mr Morris' declining health over the next fortnight until his death on June 14 caused by cardio-respiratory failure, insufficient liver proteins, fluid overload, malnutrition and blood poisoning. "You will hear experts say they were caused by the operation and the failure of the accused to give appropriate post-operative care," Mr Davis said. The hearing continues before Justice George Fryberg at 2.30pm. Earlier today, it was reported that former Bundaberg Hospital surgeon Jayant Patel's manslaughter trial had opened in the Brisbane Supreme Court. Patel, 62, has pleaded not guilty to the manslaughter of Mervyn Morris, 75, who died three weeks after surgery in June, 2003. Prosecutor Peter Davis SC will open the Crown's case in five parts. He told the jury the Crown did not suggest "for a moment" the accused unlawfully killed his patient with intent, instead pointing to criminal negligence. The accused was under a legal obligation to take reasonable care and skill in administering treatment to Mr Morris. The Crown case is the accused unlawfully killed Mr Morris. He indicated the opening would take a number of hours and include a chronology of what happened and when as well as legal analysis and information on how the Crown's 48 witnesses would fit into the case. The 15-strong jury on Wednesday faced cross-examination to screen for any bias with the potential to influence a fair trial in a "polling" process unique to Queensland and undertaken for the first time in Australia's legal history. Nine potential jurors were discharged during the full-day selection process, which included "polling" individual jury members after they'd been sworn in by asking them to complete a written questionnaire and submit to cross-examination if required. One juror was discharged following cross-examination, which helped solidify the view they would be unable to decide the case fairly because of widespread publicity surrounding the former Bundaberg Hospital surgeon. Seven other potential jurors were discharged before completing the written questionnaire because of problems to do with impartiality. Another was discharged because they had knowledge of a witness due to give evidence during the two-week hearing. Brisbane Supreme Court Justice George Fryberg acknowledged on Wednesday the prospective jurors would likely have heard of the former Bundaberg Hospital surgeon. Barrister Ken Fleming QC, for Patel, successfully applied to cross-examine five prospective jurors based on their answers to the six questions posed in the questionnaire but only challenged one. Justice Fryberg on Monday agreed with an application by defence lawyers seeking for the jury to be questioned about any adverse knowledge of Patel.