And this man heads up a charity working with vulnerable children abroad? Just great!
http://caiuk.org/news/index.htm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/7741933/CPS-considering-whether-to-charge-Dr-David-Southall-with-assault.html
CPS considering whether to charge Dr David Southall with assault
Paediatrician David Southall could face assault charges 19 years after he carried out oygen deprivation tests on a five-year-old.
Published: 7:30AM BST 20 May 2010
The Crown Prosecution Service has revealed it is considering an alleged assault on a boy of five involving a paediatrician Professor David Southall.
Until recently Dr Southall was struck off the medical register after a General Medical Council panel found he had accused a mother, Mandy Morris, of murdering her 10-year-old son, Lee.
He was interviewed by South Wales Police about experiments that took place at the University Hospital of Wales in Cardiff 19 years ago.
Bens parents claim he was brain damaged during a sleep study involving oxygen deprivation.
Dr Southall denies any wrongdoing and claims he is being continually hounded by critics.
During the experiments in Cardiff, children were given short bursts of reduced oxygen or increased carbon dioxide.
Ben has difficulty with coordination and weak speech. He still lives with his parents in Swansea.
Professor Southall faced similar allegations over his treatment of premature babies in the early 1990s while working in Stoke on Trent.
South Wales Police said that a file had been sent to the Crown Prosecution Service in April.
Dr Southall said he had been interviewed last October by police and that he was expecting a decision by the Crown Prosecution Service within the next couple of weeks.
"It's of serious concern to me," he said. "After what has happened to me I have lost a lot of faith in the justice system.
"These allegations have been hanging around for ten years, but I was only interviewed last October."
The controversial doctor was reinstated earlier this month as a paediatrician following a legal challenge after being struck off by the General Medical Council in 2007.
The appeal judges found that the GMC had failed to give adequate reasons.
The case has been sent back to the General Medical Council by the Appeal Court.
Dr Southall made it clear he has no intention of practising as a doctor in the UK, but he does want to return to child protection work.
"I have had 12 years of trauma, and opponents really will have won if I do not go back to child protection work," he said.
Thursday, 20 May 2010
Tuesday, 18 May 2010
David Southall The CPS and his experiments
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/8690789.stm
CPS investigates 'assault' by paediatrician Southall
Michele Paduano
BBC West Midlands health correspondent
Ben Hollisey Mclean has coordination and speech problems
The Crown Prosecution Service is considering an alleged assault on a boy of five involving a paediatrician who until recently was struck off.
Dr David Southall was interviewed by South Wales Police about experiments that took place at the University Hospital of Wales (UHW) 19 years ago.
Ben Hollisey Mclean's parents claim he was brain damaged during a sleep study involving oxygen deprivation.
Dr Southall denied any wrongdoing, saying he had lost faith in the system.
During the experiments at UHW in Cardiff, children were given short bursts of reduced oxygen or increased carbon dioxide.
Ben, now 24, has difficulty with coordination and weak speech. He still lives with his parents in Swansea.
South Wales Police confirmed just after Easter that a file had been sent to the Crown Prosecution Service. The CPS received a large file which was logged in late April.
"It's in the system and people are looking at it," a spokesman said.
Dr Southall, from Staffordshire, confirmed that he had been interviewed last October by police and that he was expecting a decision by the Crown Prosecution Service within the next couple of weeks.
David Southall was struck off by the GMC in 2007 but reinstated this month
"It's of serious concern to me," he said. "After what has happened to me I have lost a lot of faith in the justice system.
"It's the last case, but I am sure others will come out of the woodwork. These allegations have been hanging around for ten years, but I was only interviewed last October."
Davina Hollisey Mclean, Ben's mother, was not available for comment.
The controversial doctor was reinstated earlier this month as a paediatrician following a legal challenge after being struck off by the General Medical Council in 2007.
The GMC panel took action after it accepted that he had accused a mother, Mandy Morris, of murdering her 10-year-old son, Lee.
The appeal judges found that the GMC had failed to give adequate reasons.
The case has been sent back to the General Medical Council by the Appeal Court. Dr Southall was also found to have kept special case files on individual patients which contained material which was not in their NHS notes.
Although Dr Southall says that he has no intention of practising as a doctor in the UK, he does want to return to child protection work.
"If I give up now, these people will have won. Nobody wants to give evidence on behalf of the police and social services.
"I have had 12 years of trauma, and they really will have won if I do not go back to child protection work," he said.
CPS investigates 'assault' by paediatrician Southall
Michele Paduano
BBC West Midlands health correspondent
Ben Hollisey Mclean has coordination and speech problems
The Crown Prosecution Service is considering an alleged assault on a boy of five involving a paediatrician who until recently was struck off.
Dr David Southall was interviewed by South Wales Police about experiments that took place at the University Hospital of Wales (UHW) 19 years ago.
Ben Hollisey Mclean's parents claim he was brain damaged during a sleep study involving oxygen deprivation.
Dr Southall denied any wrongdoing, saying he had lost faith in the system.
During the experiments at UHW in Cardiff, children were given short bursts of reduced oxygen or increased carbon dioxide.
Ben, now 24, has difficulty with coordination and weak speech. He still lives with his parents in Swansea.
South Wales Police confirmed just after Easter that a file had been sent to the Crown Prosecution Service. The CPS received a large file which was logged in late April.
"It's in the system and people are looking at it," a spokesman said.
Dr Southall, from Staffordshire, confirmed that he had been interviewed last October by police and that he was expecting a decision by the Crown Prosecution Service within the next couple of weeks.
David Southall was struck off by the GMC in 2007 but reinstated this month
He said a large number of people had been interviewed. He denied any wrong
doing.
"It's of serious concern to me," he said. "After what has happened to me I have lost a lot of faith in the justice system.
"It's the last case, but I am sure others will come out of the woodwork. These allegations have been hanging around for ten years, but I was only interviewed last October."
Davina Hollisey Mclean, Ben's mother, was not available for comment.
The controversial doctor was reinstated earlier this month as a paediatrician following a legal challenge after being struck off by the General Medical Council in 2007.
The GMC panel took action after it accepted that he had accused a mother, Mandy Morris, of murdering her 10-year-old son, Lee.
The appeal judges found that the GMC had failed to give adequate reasons.
The case has been sent back to the General Medical Council by the Appeal Court. Dr Southall was also found to have kept special case files on individual patients which contained material which was not in their NHS notes.
Although Dr Southall says that he has no intention of practising as a doctor in the UK, he does want to return to child protection work.
"If I give up now, these people will have won. Nobody wants to give evidence on behalf of the police and social services.
"I have had 12 years of trauma, and they really will have won if I do not go back to child protection work," he said.
Monday, 17 May 2010
David Southall and the truth
yeah yeah David, whatever; the below protocol was written for the Royal Brompton and what did you go and do eh ..... such a liar and somebody that says one thing to pacify the stupid idiots that believe your every word (cult) and does another. Do I detect a personality disorder, (psychopathic tendencies) you'd better believe it honey. You hide behind the mantra that you are brave and fearless, stating you're out there for the good of children, when the reality is, that it's all about you and your desire to be hailed as an icon because of your deep seated inadequacies and all your little "friends" worship at your alter and don't you just love it, no need it!
You can't fool me David, you never could, you fooled Panorama, you fooled PACA members, you have fooled some of the media, you, for a time, fooled your lawyers, but never me. I know you and your type.
Another little matter, you had already instigated a police investigation into Mrs M and child M1 and his death, yet you "interviewed her" potentially skewing any prosecution, you see the ins and outs of that interview were moot, you shouldn't have talked to her at all and this document proves, because it predates that interview by many years, that you knew that didn't you!
Read the above and apply it to the below.
PROTOCOL FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF INFANTS SUSPECTED OF SUFFERING OR BEING AT RISK OF SUFFERING IMPOSED APNOEA (SMOTHERING) ,
From the Paediatric Department of the Brompton Hospital Background
The accompanying manuscript (Enclosure 1), which is now in press with the British Medical journal, describes the management of two recent children who presented to the Brompton Hospital with severe hypoxaemic episodes due to smothering.
In addition to the above cases, one further newborn infant whose previous three siblings had all died suddenly and without adequate explanation and where the referring paediatrician had suspected infanticide has undergone 24 hour covert video surveillance.
It is anticipated that further cases with problems similar to those described above will be referred to our paediatric department. This document outlines a protocol for their management.
1) Management Prior to the Initiation of Covert Video-Surveillance
All infants will be fully clerked in by the junior medical .staff. The parent(s) of all patients will in addition be seen by Dr Southall and/or one of the other consultants at the time of admission. It is important that all parents are interviewed by the paediatric social worker, or her deputy, as soon as possible after admission in order to provide a social and psychological assessment of the family. The social worker will also liaise with the social service departments at the referring hospital and/or the area of domicile of the family.
Dr Southall will initiate a standard overnight recording of O2 saturation, respiratory airflow, expired CO2, EEG, and breathing movements to help rule out a natural causes for the cyanotic episodes. If an episode of apnoea occurs during this recording it might show the characteristic pattern identified in association with smothering described in detail in the enclosed manuscript.
If the circumstances of the cyanotic episodes and the above recording suggests imposed apnoea then an immediate case conference will be held at which the following representatives should be present:- a member of the hospital social work department and social services manager, Dr Southall and/or XXXXXXXXX one of the nursing sisters from Rose Gallery, one of the nursing officers, a member of the hospital administration and, as is standard procedure at a case conference, a member of the local police force. Drs Southall, XXXXXXXXXXXXXX will also notify by telephone the referring paediatrician and the child's family practitioner about the reasons for holding a case conference. Although they will be invited to attend, this is unlikely to be possible for them given the urgency of reaching a decision concerning the video-surveillance. During this meeting the need for a Place of Safety order would be considered and subsequently initiated by the police or social services department as agreed at the meeting. Dr Southall or one of the consultant paediatricians will contact the Chelsea police station and, request their help in establishing the video surveillance.
2) Management of the Video-Surveillance
One of the cubicles in Rose Gallery, preferably the one closest to the sister's office, will be used for this surveillance. The infant/child will be attached to a tape recorder collecting the following physiological signals; (O2 saturation, breathing movements, and respiratory airflow) thus tethering the child within the field of vision of the camera.
The camera will be situated in the ceiling of this cubicle and connected to monitoring and video recording equipment in a cubicle on Gallery 3 (the ward above Rose Gallery). The video monitor will be surveyed continuously by police officers based on Gallery 3. These police officers will not enter the children's ward except when setting up the equipment. The police officers will have an emergency radio transmitter which will be linked to a radio receiver carried by paediatric nurse on Rose Gallery who has volunteered look after infant.
If the police officer detects an episode of smothering or suspected smothering he/she will wait 10 seconds for corroboration and then alert the paediatric nurse by radio. The nurse will immediately go into the cubicle and attend to the infant. The nurse will not confront the mother but merely check that the child is breathing and thereafter remain in the cubicle.
The police officer will also alert Dr Southall or a designated member of the medical staff. Dr Southall or deputy will then proceed immediately to the cubicle on Rose Gallery and request the mother to accompany him to Gallery 3. The mother will then be introduced to the police officers. Dr Southall will not discuss the reason for this transfer of the mother from the children's ward unless it is absolutely essential. He will not discuss the video monitoring since this could prejudice any subsequent court proceedings brought by the police against the mother.
If statutory protection is required, this will follow. The paediatric social worker or deputy will liaise with the family's local social service department to arrange for transfer of the child out of the hospital provided that the medical staff are satisfied that he or she is healthy and has no need for further investigations or treatment.
Dr Southall, or deputy, will contact the paediatrician or family practitioner who has direct primary care of the family requesting that she or she inform in
person the husband, father or guardian of the child about the diagnosis and police action.
Justification for the Protocol and Ethical Considerations
In a publication entitled 'A Child in Trust' concerning the death by physical abuse of a child called Jasmine Beckford the following statements are stated relevant to our action.
“.... the immediate treatment and care of an abused child is essential . The need for accurate factual information is paramount in all cases as it is often the absence of concisely documented information which leads to unnecessary difficulties."
"....parental rights cannot be insisted upon by a parent who has abused these rights."
Further discussions on these vital issues are to be found on pages 16-19 of Enclosure 1 and in Enclosure 2, which is a report by Professor Dunstan following a meeting at the Brompton Hospital to discuss the ethical problems associated with this approach to the management of this serious and dangerous form of child abuse.
There are two further questions that should be answered.
1. Does the covert video surveillance need to be implemented by the police?
We consider for the following reasons that this is essential. The medical, nursing and social service professions have no training in detective work, in handling people suspected of committing criminal offences or in the use of covert video surveillance. The need to obtain hard, unequivocal evidence has been discussed above. It is possible that evidence obtained without the help of the police may be inadmissible in court. It is crucial that if the child is being abused he or she is adequately protected from further injury. Only the court has sufficient power to enforce this. It is also vital that the abuser receives psychiatric treatment and once again only the court has the power to enforce this. Although we accept superficially that enlisting police assistance may be considered to promote a punitive outcome, this is in fact incorrect. The police act only to protect the public. It is the juries and judges, who are elected on behalf of society, who provide, hopefully in an appropriate way,either punishment or treatment to the abuser.. In all three cases to date investigated at this hospital we have been impressed by the professionalism and compassion shown by the police. For these reasons although it would not be illegal to do so, we do not wish to manage covert video surveillance without the help of the police.
2. Would the pattern of signals on the multichannel recordings be sufficiently specific for imposed apnoea and therefore avoid the need for video surveillance?
Unfortunately this hypothesis will have to be tested prospectively on a larger number of cases before it could be scientifically or legally accepted and therefore this investigation cannot be used without the video surveillance.
Finally we stress that information with respect to suspected or proven child abuse is absolutely confidential and must be discussed only with personnel involved directly in the care of the child or his or her family. This protocol will be implemented by, and involve only medical, nursing or social service personnel who have agreed to abide by this agreement on confidentiality.
Yo Davey et al
Might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb eh, know what I mean.
There are no winners, especially the children, now watch me the the sheep and watch very carefully because this time you all really screwed up and you will be hoisted by your own petard!
Oh and PACA stop putting out your press releases and hiding behind what you think are clever words, what you really mean is that Penny Mellor is conducting an orchestrated campaign against child protection doctors. At least have the balls to say what you mean. Cowards.
There are no winners, especially the children, now watch me the the sheep and watch very carefully because this time you all really screwed up and you will be hoisted by your own petard!
Oh and PACA stop putting out your press releases and hiding behind what you think are clever words, what you really mean is that Penny Mellor is conducting an orchestrated campaign against child protection doctors. At least have the balls to say what you mean. Cowards.
Saturday, 15 May 2010
Mo Wilson
Today was Mo's funeral, sadly, despite my best efforts to get sitters for animals and younger children, I couldn't make it, I did however make her birthday party a couple of weeks back, my "goodbye" to Mo was to sit and sup wine and have a joke about getting her outside.
To my dear friend Brian Morgan, who has suffered this terrible loss, she will be missed and I would like to thank you and Mo for the tremendous things you have both done for children in both your work and personal lives. Mo walked this earth and she left a legacy, she will never be forgotten. Brian, you must continue the work she so wanted you to finish! x
You can leave a tribute here http://mowilson.blogspot.com/
I lift a glass to Mo, wherever you are brave sweetheart, (or stubborn given that you are Scottish!!!) the world has lost an innately decent, kind human being, enjoy xxxx
To my dear friend Brian Morgan, who has suffered this terrible loss, she will be missed and I would like to thank you and Mo for the tremendous things you have both done for children in both your work and personal lives. Mo walked this earth and she left a legacy, she will never be forgotten. Brian, you must continue the work she so wanted you to finish! x
You can leave a tribute here http://mowilson.blogspot.com/
I lift a glass to Mo, wherever you are brave sweetheart, (or stubborn given that you are Scottish!!!) the world has lost an innately decent, kind human being, enjoy xxxx
Friday, 7 May 2010
David Southall and how he spins my position
Just another indication of how the truth is glossed over by DS.
• An article headlined The campaign against David Southall (6 May, page 12, G2) said that the campaign against him and a fellow paediatrician, Sir Roy Meadow, had been led by a group called Mothers against Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy; the group was described as denying the existence of a form of abuse whereby a parent deliberately causes a child illness or injury. The article went on to describe Penny Mellor as leader of the campaign. To clarify: the article did not intend to suggest that Penny Mellor's activism on this issue involved leadership of a specific group, Mothers against Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy, or that she shared the group's belief that parents/carers do not abuse children in this way.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2010/may/07/corrections-clarifications
• An article headlined The campaign against David Southall (6 May, page 12, G2) said that the campaign against him and a fellow paediatrician, Sir Roy Meadow, had been led by a group called Mothers against Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy; the group was described as denying the existence of a form of abuse whereby a parent deliberately causes a child illness or injury. The article went on to describe Penny Mellor as leader of the campaign. To clarify: the article did not intend to suggest that Penny Mellor's activism on this issue involved leadership of a specific group, Mothers against Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy, or that she shared the group's belief that parents/carers do not abuse children in this way.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2010/may/07/corrections-clarifications
Wednesday, 5 May 2010
David a message
You have not been cleared, you've been acquitted on a technicality (your words) - You have been sent back for retrial!
David Southall double standards and breath taking arrogance
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8661000/8661517.stm
Well well well, here is the man himself, stating that the mere suspicion of child abuse should result in immediate reporting and further investigation - further to that he advocates that whilst that is going on children must be protected. Admirable and right, however he doesn't apply it to himself does he? No.
So here are the facts
- David Southall is under police investigation for an alleged assault on a child
- David Southall was interviewed under caution for over 7 hour by the police in relation to that offence in the Autumn of last year
- As I write, that file, after a lengthy police investigation, sits with the CPS awaiting charging decisions
- In Jan last year the law changed in relation to arrest and charge, prior to last year the police could arrest and bail the suspect and not have to disclose the evidence they had against them, today that does not apply, today the police have to disclose upon arrest, which is why they interview under caution without an arrest where possible, allowing them to keep their cards close to their chests.
So, applying David's own standards, should he be allowed near any child?
Tuesday, 4 May 2010
PACA Members
Want to explain to the media that you are the named referring paeds for the SC Files? Or shall I?
Keep going!
Keep going!
Southall latest judgment
Thanks the GMC for completely failing the complainants, oh well never mind eh, what more can we expect! Even Jesus only had one resurrection!!!!
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> Southall v The General Medical Council [2010] EWCA Civ 484 (04 May 2010)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2010/484.html
Cite as: [2010] EWCA Civ 484
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Neutral Citation Number: [2010] EWCA Civ 484
Case No: C1/2009/1239
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM
THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
THE HON MR JUSTICE BLAKE
CO/11559/07, [2009] EWHC 1155 (Admin)
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
04/05/2010
B e f o r e :
THE RT. HON. LORD JUSTICE WALLER
Vice President of the Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
THE RT. HON. SIR JOHN DYSON SCJ
and
THE RT. HON. LORD JUSTICE LEVESON
____________________
Between:
Dr. DAVID SOUTHALL
Appellant
- and -
THE GENERAL MEDICAL COUNCIL
Respondent
____________________
Mary O'Rourke Q.C. and Oliver Williamson (instructed by Hempsons, Manchester) for the Appellant
Monica Carss-Frisk Q.C. and Richard Tyson (instructed by Field Fisher Waterhouse, Manchester) for the Respondent
Hearing dates : 22-23 March 2010
____________________
HTML VERSION OF ADDENDUM TO JUDGMENT
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
Lord Justice Leveson :
In the judgment of the court handed down on 20 April 2010, 2010] EWCA Civ 407 , written submissions were invited from the parties as to the appropriate order in relation to the charges relating to Mrs M. Sequentially, both sides have submitted two sets of submissions.
The Appropriate Orders
For the GMC, Ms Carrs-Frisk argued that Mrs M's complaint should be remitted to the panel for amplification of reasons. Given that the court rejected the complaint that the findings of the panel were perverse, the approach in cases such as Barke v Seetec Business Technology Centre Ltd [2005] EWCA Civ 578 and Adami v The Ethical Standards Officer of the Standards Board for England [2005] EWCA Civ 1754, while leaving open the option of quashing the decision, approved the practice of remitting to the same tribunal for it to reconsider the matter and reformulate and adequately express its reasons for decision. She argues that paragraphs 60 and 61 of the judgment merely raise a question mark about impermissible influence and that the panel should have the opportunity of dealing with that issue.
Ms O'Rourke, for Dr Southall, besides challenging the mechanism whereby such an outcome might be achieved, submitted that the mind of the panel had been set by reference to issues which did not fall within the charge as formulated and that there would be a real risk that it would tailor its answers to meet the concerns expressed in the judgment, rather than reconsider the matter in an open and fair way. Indeed, the questions posed by Ms Carss-Frisk postulate merely the provision of further and better reasons without raising the possibility that the facts may have been approached on an impermissible basis.
I have no doubt that, in an appropriate case, this court has the jurisdiction to remit a decision to a panel for further reasons but I am equally clear that, in the circumstances of this case, it would not be right to do so. Given the issues between the parties, the process of reaching a decision – the reasoning – is itself important and although I recognise that there was material upon which the panel could reach the decision that it did, that is not the same as saying that, if approached from the correct analytical position, it would necessarily have done so.
This proposition can be illustrated by reference to one of the questions postulated by the GMC that the panel might address. It is:
"Bearing in mind the comments made in paragraphs 60 and 61 of the judgment, to what extent, if any, were you influenced, when reaching your determination of the facts by (i) your extreme concern that Dr Southall formed the belief that the circumstances of M1's death needed to be investigated by him; or (ii) the submission made to you by the GMC that Dr Southall and Ms Salem both had a 'mindset' which concentrated on the risk of harm to M1 at the hands of Mrs M before, during and immediately after the 27 April 1998 interview?"
For my part, I find it very difficult to see how that question can be answered satisfactorily. The fact is that when dealing with sanction, the panel expressed extreme concern that Dr Southall had undertaken this exercise: without expert evidence, they accepted submissions to that effect. If the panel answers "not at all", on what basis does it appear in the sanction remarks? If they answer (as I say it is not fanciful to suggest) that his concern made it more likely that he would ask the direct question (as opposed to asking questions that created that perception), the reasoning is not based on evidence and flawed.
As an alternative submission, the GMC submit that the complaints made by Mrs M should be re-heard if the public interest in the regulation of the medical profession is to be served. It is said that the case is of profound importance to Mrs M and Dr Southall and has attracted the close attention of the profession. Ms Carss-Frisk also submits that it could be re-heard by the same panel. Ms O'Rourke argued that 'enough is enough': 12 years have passed, it would be difficult to find a panel that had not been affected by subsequent events and Dr Southall was both subject to a wrongful suspension for 5 months (which led to his resignation from NHS employment) and, for over 11 months since the decision of Blake J, has been erased from the register.
I recognise that there is serious public concern about the investigation of issues surrounding alleged child abuse but underline that, at the hearing, Ms Carss-Frisk made the point that the issue raised by prominent paediatricians (and others) did not arise because the case turned upon a straightforward issue of fact i.e. whether Dr Southall had expressly accused Mrs M of drugging and then murdering M1 by hanging him, it not being suggested that if Dr Southall had done so, he was not guilty of serious professional misconduct. In the light of the way in which the charges had been formulated, the wider issues did not arise and the panel did not have to grapple with the question how far it is appropriate for a consultant paediatrician to go when investigating these issues or, to put the question more bluntly, whether it is appropriate to question in such a way as raises the perception that the interviewee is being accused of murder and, if so, what material should be available to the paediatrician before he does so.
I am far from convinced that the public interest is truly served by a rehearing of the limited factual allegation that was made in this case, turning on the precise language used 12 years ago. Having said that, however, protection of the public interest is primarily for the GMC and I do not consider it appropriate to remove the responsibility for making this decision from them. I would quash the findings of the panel in relation to Mrs M (including the sanction) and remit the matter for the GMC to determine whether or not, in the light of all the circumstances and these observations, it is appropriate to pursue the complaint of Mrs M to a fresh panel. If there is to be a re-hearing, I do not accept that it would be right for it to be conducted before the same panel; fresh minds should be brought to the issues in the case.
As for the Dinwiddie and SC files, I reject Ms O'Rourke's submission that the sanction hearing should necessarily be before a different panel or that the minds of the original panel will be 'closed' because of the allegations concerning Mrs M; I have no doubt that the panel is sufficiently professional to be able to focus only on the issues that fall to be sentenced and I reject the concern of appearance of bias. Further, although Ms Carss-Frisk argues that if the complaint by Mrs M is to be remitted to the same or another panel, the appropriate course would be for further consideration of these complaints to await the final outcome of Mrs M's complaint, for my part, I do not understand why that course is necessary. The complaints are distinct and were linked with the Mrs M complaints only because it was convenient that they be heard together. Dr Southall is entitled to finality on these charges and I would remit them to the original panel for a sanction hearing.
Permission to Appeal
Ms Carss-Frisk seeks permission to appeal to the Supreme Court and suggests that this case raises an important principle as to the duty to give reasons; although the function of hearing cases such as this will be transferred to the Office of Health Professions Adjudicator, it is argued that it would be of value for the common law principles to be authoritatively settled. For my part, however, this case did no more than identify an exceptional circumstance where the principle of fairness requires reasons to be given "even on matters of fact": see Gupta v General Medical Council [2002] 1 WLR 1691 at [14]. I would refuse permission to appeal.
Costs
It is unnecessary to outline the various contentions of the parties. To reflect the substantial (but not total) success of Dr Southall in this court, I would order the GMC to pay 60% of his costs. As for the costs in the Administrative Court, which concerned challenges to each of the decisions of the panel (in relation to the Dinwiddie and SC files not being repeated to this court), I would reduce the order made by Blake J so that Dr Southall pays 75% of the costs of the GMC. In each case, the costs are to be agreed or assessed on the standard basis.
The parties should agree and lodge a minute of order.
Sir John Dyson SCJ :
I agree.
Lord Justice Waller :
I also agree.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2010/484.html
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> Southall v The General Medical Council [2010] EWCA Civ 484 (04 May 2010)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2010/484.html
Cite as: [2010] EWCA Civ 484
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Neutral Citation Number: [2010] EWCA Civ 484
Case No: C1/2009/1239
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM
THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
THE HON MR JUSTICE BLAKE
CO/11559/07, [2009] EWHC 1155 (Admin)
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
04/05/2010
B e f o r e :
THE RT. HON. LORD JUSTICE WALLER
Vice President of the Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
THE RT. HON. SIR JOHN DYSON SCJ
and
THE RT. HON. LORD JUSTICE LEVESON
____________________
Between:
Dr. DAVID SOUTHALL
Appellant
- and -
THE GENERAL MEDICAL COUNCIL
Respondent
____________________
Mary O'Rourke Q.C. and Oliver Williamson (instructed by Hempsons, Manchester) for the Appellant
Monica Carss-Frisk Q.C. and Richard Tyson (instructed by Field Fisher Waterhouse, Manchester) for the Respondent
Hearing dates : 22-23 March 2010
____________________
HTML VERSION OF ADDENDUM TO JUDGMENT
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
Lord Justice Leveson :
In the judgment of the court handed down on 20 April 2010, 2010] EWCA Civ 407 , written submissions were invited from the parties as to the appropriate order in relation to the charges relating to Mrs M. Sequentially, both sides have submitted two sets of submissions.
The Appropriate Orders
For the GMC, Ms Carrs-Frisk argued that Mrs M's complaint should be remitted to the panel for amplification of reasons. Given that the court rejected the complaint that the findings of the panel were perverse, the approach in cases such as Barke v Seetec Business Technology Centre Ltd [2005] EWCA Civ 578 and Adami v The Ethical Standards Officer of the Standards Board for England [2005] EWCA Civ 1754, while leaving open the option of quashing the decision, approved the practice of remitting to the same tribunal for it to reconsider the matter and reformulate and adequately express its reasons for decision. She argues that paragraphs 60 and 61 of the judgment merely raise a question mark about impermissible influence and that the panel should have the opportunity of dealing with that issue.
Ms O'Rourke, for Dr Southall, besides challenging the mechanism whereby such an outcome might be achieved, submitted that the mind of the panel had been set by reference to issues which did not fall within the charge as formulated and that there would be a real risk that it would tailor its answers to meet the concerns expressed in the judgment, rather than reconsider the matter in an open and fair way. Indeed, the questions posed by Ms Carss-Frisk postulate merely the provision of further and better reasons without raising the possibility that the facts may have been approached on an impermissible basis.
I have no doubt that, in an appropriate case, this court has the jurisdiction to remit a decision to a panel for further reasons but I am equally clear that, in the circumstances of this case, it would not be right to do so. Given the issues between the parties, the process of reaching a decision – the reasoning – is itself important and although I recognise that there was material upon which the panel could reach the decision that it did, that is not the same as saying that, if approached from the correct analytical position, it would necessarily have done so.
This proposition can be illustrated by reference to one of the questions postulated by the GMC that the panel might address. It is:
"Bearing in mind the comments made in paragraphs 60 and 61 of the judgment, to what extent, if any, were you influenced, when reaching your determination of the facts by (i) your extreme concern that Dr Southall formed the belief that the circumstances of M1's death needed to be investigated by him; or (ii) the submission made to you by the GMC that Dr Southall and Ms Salem both had a 'mindset' which concentrated on the risk of harm to M1 at the hands of Mrs M before, during and immediately after the 27 April 1998 interview?"
For my part, I find it very difficult to see how that question can be answered satisfactorily. The fact is that when dealing with sanction, the panel expressed extreme concern that Dr Southall had undertaken this exercise: without expert evidence, they accepted submissions to that effect. If the panel answers "not at all", on what basis does it appear in the sanction remarks? If they answer (as I say it is not fanciful to suggest) that his concern made it more likely that he would ask the direct question (as opposed to asking questions that created that perception), the reasoning is not based on evidence and flawed.
As an alternative submission, the GMC submit that the complaints made by Mrs M should be re-heard if the public interest in the regulation of the medical profession is to be served. It is said that the case is of profound importance to Mrs M and Dr Southall and has attracted the close attention of the profession. Ms Carss-Frisk also submits that it could be re-heard by the same panel. Ms O'Rourke argued that 'enough is enough': 12 years have passed, it would be difficult to find a panel that had not been affected by subsequent events and Dr Southall was both subject to a wrongful suspension for 5 months (which led to his resignation from NHS employment) and, for over 11 months since the decision of Blake J, has been erased from the register.
I recognise that there is serious public concern about the investigation of issues surrounding alleged child abuse but underline that, at the hearing, Ms Carss-Frisk made the point that the issue raised by prominent paediatricians (and others) did not arise because the case turned upon a straightforward issue of fact i.e. whether Dr Southall had expressly accused Mrs M of drugging and then murdering M1 by hanging him, it not being suggested that if Dr Southall had done so, he was not guilty of serious professional misconduct. In the light of the way in which the charges had been formulated, the wider issues did not arise and the panel did not have to grapple with the question how far it is appropriate for a consultant paediatrician to go when investigating these issues or, to put the question more bluntly, whether it is appropriate to question in such a way as raises the perception that the interviewee is being accused of murder and, if so, what material should be available to the paediatrician before he does so.
I am far from convinced that the public interest is truly served by a rehearing of the limited factual allegation that was made in this case, turning on the precise language used 12 years ago. Having said that, however, protection of the public interest is primarily for the GMC and I do not consider it appropriate to remove the responsibility for making this decision from them. I would quash the findings of the panel in relation to Mrs M (including the sanction) and remit the matter for the GMC to determine whether or not, in the light of all the circumstances and these observations, it is appropriate to pursue the complaint of Mrs M to a fresh panel. If there is to be a re-hearing, I do not accept that it would be right for it to be conducted before the same panel; fresh minds should be brought to the issues in the case.
As for the Dinwiddie and SC files, I reject Ms O'Rourke's submission that the sanction hearing should necessarily be before a different panel or that the minds of the original panel will be 'closed' because of the allegations concerning Mrs M; I have no doubt that the panel is sufficiently professional to be able to focus only on the issues that fall to be sentenced and I reject the concern of appearance of bias. Further, although Ms Carss-Frisk argues that if the complaint by Mrs M is to be remitted to the same or another panel, the appropriate course would be for further consideration of these complaints to await the final outcome of Mrs M's complaint, for my part, I do not understand why that course is necessary. The complaints are distinct and were linked with the Mrs M complaints only because it was convenient that they be heard together. Dr Southall is entitled to finality on these charges and I would remit them to the original panel for a sanction hearing.
Permission to Appeal
Ms Carss-Frisk seeks permission to appeal to the Supreme Court and suggests that this case raises an important principle as to the duty to give reasons; although the function of hearing cases such as this will be transferred to the Office of Health Professions Adjudicator, it is argued that it would be of value for the common law principles to be authoritatively settled. For my part, however, this case did no more than identify an exceptional circumstance where the principle of fairness requires reasons to be given "even on matters of fact": see Gupta v General Medical Council [2002] 1 WLR 1691 at [14]. I would refuse permission to appeal.
Costs
It is unnecessary to outline the various contentions of the parties. To reflect the substantial (but not total) success of Dr Southall in this court, I would order the GMC to pay 60% of his costs. As for the costs in the Administrative Court, which concerned challenges to each of the decisions of the panel (in relation to the Dinwiddie and SC files not being repeated to this court), I would reduce the order made by Blake J so that Dr Southall pays 75% of the costs of the GMC. In each case, the costs are to be agreed or assessed on the standard basis.
The parties should agree and lodge a minute of order.
Sir John Dyson SCJ :
I agree.
Lord Justice Waller :
I also agree.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2010/484.html
David Southall back on the register OH YES watch this space
So Davey, the SC Files weren't about research weren't they? Really, "clinical audit" was it? Well explain the above, found in the SC Files during the DCFS investigation and I will get the names of the doctors that responded (members of PACA) and sent you original records, only for them to be hidden, oh and where's the protocol to enable you to do this? Where was the patient's consent? Doesn't exist does it.
Bring it on!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)