In July 2012, Vincent was sent home from school complaining of feeling unwell. He died barely six hours later.Rose, a mother-of-three Rose from east London, has not worked since March 2013 and remains under an interim suspension order by the General Optical Council (GOC), due to expire in June 2018.The GOC said it was aware of the Court of Appeal’s decision to overturn her conviction and was “giving the matter due consideration.” Vincent’s parents, Joanne and Ian Barker, said they were “devastated” by the ruling and had been failed by the legal system.””We remain in no doubt that if Honey Rose had not breached her duty of care to our son, he would still be with us today,” they said.“This case now opens the gates for medical practitioners to operate outside of the standard at which they are required to perform, without full accountability or responsibility to uphold their duty of care.”The court heard that retinal images taken of the back of Vincent’s eyes in February 2012 wereremarkably different from those taken in 2011 and showed significant congestion of the veins and swelling of the optic nerve.However, Rose claimed she was shown the wrong images during the appointment. She also claimed she had not properly examined the back of Vincent’s eyes because he had shown an aversion to the bright light, a suggestion disputed by his mother. “Were the answer otherwise, this would fundamentally undermine the established legal test of foreseeability in gross negligence manslaughter which requires proof of a ‘serious and obvious risk of death’ at the time of breach,” he continued.He said the implications for medical and other professions would be “serious” as they would be guilty of gross negligence manslaughter for failing to carry out routine eye, blood and other tests, which in fact would have revealed fatal conditions. Vincent Barker died about five months after the eye testCredit:Alban Donohoe/Albanpix.com Medics who fail to carry out routine tests cannot be expected to foresee a risk of death, the Court of Appeal has ruled, after an optometrist who failed to spot a schoolboy’s fatal condition had her manslaughter conviction overturned.Honey Rose, 35, did not notice that seven-year-old Vincent Barker had swollen optic discs – a symptom of fluid on the brain – when she examined him at a branch of Boots in Ipswich.He died five months later and she was subsequently found guilty of gross negligence manslaughter, given a two-year suspended prison term and ordered to carry out 200 hours of community service. Want the best of The Telegraph direct to your email and WhatsApp? Sign up to our free twice-daily Front Page newsletter and new audio briefings. Honey Rose arriving for her trial at Ipswich Crown CourtCredit:Alban Donohoe/Albanpix.com But her conviction was quashed on appeal after judges ruled that while there had been a “serious breach of duty,” it did not constitute the crime of gross negligence manslaughter.Sir Brian Leveson, sitting alongside two other judges, ruled that Rose could not possibly have known that Vincent was suffering from a long-standing, chronic problem when she conducted a routine eye test.He said it was therefore inappropriate take into account what she would have known but for her breach of duty, which was the failure to properly to examine the back of Vincent’s eyes.