Well can the single rotweiller lawyer beat the paid two for the GMC - hardly fair, however that's how the cookie crumbles sometimes - wasn't fair that the heart of the GMC complaints were ripped out either. That's the GMC for you though ... No integrity!
So here's a heads up; despite what people might say or think about me, the one thing I do believe in, beyond any cause, is fairness.
Lord Leveson
http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/docs/speeches/spj-forensic-experts-05112009.pdf
"As a judge, I will expect you to have a proper appreciation of the scope of your expertise – and I will expect you to have the confidence and integrity to point out weaknesses in your evidence not so much by denigrating yourself but by ensuring that you have shaded your opinion and provided appropriate caveats and details of the significant facts the accuracy of which you have assumed but the judge may have to find. Further, of course, when you simply don’t know the answer to something or are being pressed to speculate or make assumptions which fly in the face of your appreciation of the facts or the basis on which you have proceeded, say so. By knowing the limits of your expertise, you will know the limits of what your evidence can be."
Justice Blake
"I well understand that a paediatrician concerned with the welfare of the child is not bound by previous conclusions of social workers, police, coroners or anybody else with respect to injuries on a child he is examining or even a sibling of that child. Matters that are properly recorded in medical notes or substantiated by other evidence can properly form the basis of conclusions by an expert paediatrician. It may be that it is considered by reason of his or her experience in assessment of such cases that such injuries were not accidental, or that a sequence of innocuous injuries, however caused, may point to real concerns as to the treatment of the child whether physical or emotional in the home environment where he was at the time. The difference from wholly proper investigative concerns of alternative scenarios in such a case is that they are founded on evidence and the proper experience of the expert evaluating such evidence within his or her area of competence. In this case Dr Southall was not an expert in curtain poles or pathology or it appears the means by which young people may choose to harm themselves once they had decided to do so. In this case not only was there no evidence to support the hypothesis that M1 had not self harmed, but all the inquest evidence pointed the other way. Dr Southall 's initial instincts in January and the matters that he put to Mrs M in interview in April were deployed without there being any change in the evidential position adduced before the inquest. Nothing new or suspicious had emerged"
Justice Collins Southall CHRE Appeal
"Further, there can be no doubt that Professor Southall 's report had breached the guidelines for medical experts in court proceedings and had failed to have proper regard to the need for caution in advising that a particular event had taken place. Further, he had for no good reason failed to disclose that he had spoken to Professor Green and Professor Meadow over the telephone and had obtained what he regarded as important information from them which fortified him in his opinion."
