Jayant Patel has been sentenced to seven years in jail for the manslaughter of three patients at Bundaberg's Base Hospital in southern Queensland between 2003 and 2005 and will be eligible for parole after three-and-a-half-years.

Prosecutors had asked Justice John Byrne to jail the 60-year-old former surgeon for more than 10 years after his convictions for three counts of manslaughter and one of grievous bodily harm.

Patel's lawyers said a four to five-year jail sentence was warranted, given Patel's lack of criminal history, the public vilification he has suffered since returning to Australia and that jail would be particularly harsh for Patel.

Patel had pleaded not guilty to the manslaughter of 75-year-old Mervyn Morris, 77-year-old Gerardus Kemps and 46-year-old James Phillips.

He also pleaded not guilty to causing grievous bodily harm to 63-year-old Ian Vowles during his time working as a surgeon.

Justice Byrne briefly recounted Patel's treatment of the four men involved before telling Patel he had shown repeated serious disregard for the welfare of his patients.

He said that while the absence of any intention by Patel to harm his patients was significant, the jury's verdicts meant Patel had shown such moral guilt that he deserved to be punished as a criminal.

Justice Byrne told Patel that the legal system must make it clear that the community, acting through the court, denounced his repeated serious disregard for the welfare of his patients.

He said Patel's judgment in taking each patient to surgery was so thoroughly reprehensible that he deserved to be punished as a criminal.

During the sentencing in Brisbane's Supreme Court, Justice Byrne reminded Patel of the restrictions that were placed on him in the United States by the board of medical examiners in Oregon and that those restrictions showed that there was respectable medical opinion that his level of surgical competence required him to obtain second opinions.

Patel was also reminded that he told no-one about that order in Bundaberg - not the hospital administrators, medical staff or his patients.

Justice Byrne said he took into account as mitigating factors that prison would be particularly harsh for Patel given his notoriety and that Patel spent six months in jail in the US while awaiting extradition.

Patel will be eligible for parole after serving half of his sentence.

'Happy with outcome'

Gerardus Kemps' widow, Judy Kemps, said it was just fine by her that Patel would spend years behind bars.

"That's fine by me, I'm very happy with the outcome, you couldn't have wished for better," she said.

"For me the conviction was the main thing. He's been found guilty and whatever they do after that it doesn't worry me.

"My only aim has always been to stop him from doing further damage."

Former Patel patient Beryl Crosby - who is also an advocate for patients who suffered at the hands of the former surgeon - said she is thrilled to know he will spend seven years in jail for his crimes.

Another former patient, Linda Parsons, endured a botched hernia operation. She said she was overjoyed with the sentence, but it was the guilty verdict that mattered most.

"I was never concerned with how long he got. I was after the guilty verdict," she said.

"I just feel like five years of my life has been lifted away and I feel very teary right now."

Whistleblower Toni Hoffman says the sentence is suitable.

"Our society has spoken and it's a good result. [There are] a lot of lessons to be learnt," she said.

"Our legal system has to reflect us as a society and our needs as a society and at the moment it's done that, so I think we should just be grateful for that."

Patel has been remanded in custody since the guilty verdict on Tuesday. The jury took six-and-a-half days to reach the verdict and handed down its decision in the Supreme Court in Brisbane.

Lengthy trial

The defence claimed Patel had always acted in the best interests of his patients, who had consented to the operations.

But prosecutor Ross Martin, who characterised Patel as a "bad surgeon motivated by ego and suffering from lack of insight", urged the jury to return guilty verdicts on all charges.

He told the jury the trial was about "judgments" and that Patel's negligence extended to his poor decisions about when to operate, and his choices about appropriate post-operative care.

In summing up last Wednesday, Justice Byrne reminded the jury that Mr Martin neatly summarised the Crown's allegations when he said: "Over 19 to 20 months there had been poor decision-making, misdiagnosis, performing surgery on patients who could not withstand it, performing surgery at the wrong hospital and the removal of healthy organs".

However, Patel's defence team had urged the jury to find Patel not guilty, saying he always acted in the best interests of his patients.

Defence barrister Michael Byrne, QC, told the jury much of the evidence presented by the crown during the marathon trial had been fuelled by "a great deal of second-guessing and use of hindsight".

"With hindsight it may have been the wrong call [to operate on Mr Kemps] but that does not make the decision criminally negligent," Mr Byrne said.

Justice Byrne warned the jury against using the benefit of hindsight in making their judgment about whether or not Patel was criminally negligent in proceeding with the operations.

Patel's Supreme Court trial began in Brisbane in March 2010 and has become one of the longest Supreme Court criminal trials in Queensland's history.

- ABC/AAP