GMC " Expert" Is ERASED Doctor

Richard Nicholson apparently edits the Bulletin of "Medical Ethics". The Editorial Board has turned a blind eye to the fact he is now parading himself as an expert in the hallowed halls of the General Medical Council. What sort of expert we ask ourself? Is a man who isn't even a doctor allowed to do such things? Is he able to hold himself out as " expert" for a supposedly esteemed regulatory body? Does simply editing the Bulletin qualify him to be an expert?

The GMC are desperate to hang the two doctors as lambs to the slaughter - David Southall, Martin Samuels et al. Richard Nicholson is acting as expert to the Henshall case currently due in at the General Medical Council. The Ethics Bulletin Editorial Board are happy to see this happen as they have done nothing to criticise the role of this totalitarian regime.

The GMC needs to parade some doctors following the Shipman Inquiry to justify their existence or perhaps to justify their charitable status. No one has the moral high ground here apart from the Editorial Board of the Bulletin of " Medical Ethics" who should be questioning the validity of the GMC's decision to pay this man for his so called " Expert View".

The GMC could of course find no one else to act apart from Richard Nicholson. We often wonder whether the GMC obtains a declaration of conflict or doesn't this organisation give a damn about a fair trial.

EMAIL FROM GENERAL MEDICAL COUNCIL

Tanya Royer (020 7189 5427)" <TRoyer@gmc-uk.org>
Subject: Richard H Nicholson

Further to your question regarding the above doctor, this doctor was removed from the medical register 23/02/2000 for administrative reasons.

Tanya

--------------------

What else do we know about "Dr"Richard "I want to be paid by the GMC" Nicholson. Well, a fair bit really. It has long been known that there is a conflict between this expert and the Henshall case. This is very similar to the mass conflicts that existed in the case of Professor Timothy David.

Everytime we talk about Timothy David, there is silence all over. Actually, we can often hear a pin drop. Anyway, what we should really do is continue to discuss Dr Richard Nicholson in greater detail. We should all be agreed that all experts hired by the GMC should be independent of the case and should never have had any involvement in the past [ with either party]. They should not have a biased standpoint from the outset. Infact, conflicts were discussed in the case of Toth v Jarman. The points of law are crystal clear. The GMC though feels it is above the law and above case law. That is why their practises have been much like the totalitarian regime.

It is not that we take the moral high ground at all but it is really all about how many people turn a blind eye and how many people are able to read the evidence and analyse what is right and what is wrong. In this case, some of the top doctors who write about " ethics" have ignored these issues. We are interested in justice. Justice is important to maintain especially by the GMC.

Before we continue, we should mention that there are potential links between Dr Nicholson, Brian Morgan and Penny Mellor. The article on Child Protection links Brian Morgan and Penny Mellor to the Henshall case.

For those new to the issue, an excellent website detailing the life and times of ex convict Penny Mellor is listed here.

Summary [ this is verified by evidence we have].

1. Richard Nicholson though has already publicly declared a view that is anti David Southall. We wonder if that makes him " independent". He has used the Bulletin of Medical Ethics to make anonymous criticism of CNEP and other Southall research.

2. He provides expert view that he is not qualified to make (see comments in evidence to Griffiths about Covert Video, Hypoxia study and David Southalls personality).

3. He has declared in a letter to the BMJ in September 1998 that he had met the Henshalls and that one child died and another was brain injured as a result of being used in a research experiment without their consent.

4. He has not practiced in medicine for many years, he has not been registered since the year 2000, the highest post-graduate qualification he has in paediatrics is DCH, he does not appear to have any qualifications in research or in medical or research ethics.

5. He has a potential conflict of interest, in that he makes money by training members of ethical committees. Proving that ethics committees have passed "unethical research" will increase the requirement for training (see competing interests in Richard Nicholson Editorial).

A detailed account and evidence is due to be featured soon.

Despite all this, his Editorial Board at the Bulletin of Medical Ethics continue to shy away from holding him accountable. They have turned a blind eye on the GMC's actions. They have not released a press statement to confirm whether or not they are linked to Dr Nicholson. These people were apparently informed of the above and made no efforts to see that the GMC acted
"ethically". Omission to act and a rather dismissive attitude is possibly the reason all doctors have a regulatory body that is unfit. It has always been unfit because senior doctors have failed to act to make the system fairer. Sheila McClean's dismissive stance was even more amusing. As the grande lady of medical law, you could see her order the emailer to "go away and not bother her anymore". We suspect that is what happens when people grow old. They forget that the legacy left to the young is a dysfunctional regulatory body that violates the rights of most doctors [ whether innocent or guilty]. Everyone deserves a fair trial. This inability by our seniors to challenge the GMC, to question the procedures and to demand justice is common.

Perhaps the next article the Editorial Board should edit is "A Study in Conflicts in GMC Experts".

EDITORIAL BOARD

• Priscilla Alderson, research sociologist at the Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, London University;

• Peter Beck, consultant physician, Penarth, South Wales, and secretary of the Royal College of Physicians’ committee on ethical issues in medicine;

• Bela Blasszauer, senior lecturer in medical ethics, University of Pecs, Hungary;

• Martin Bojar, former Minister of Health of the Czech Republic; clinical neurologist and teacher of medical ethics;

• Martyn Evans, University College Fellow at the Centre for Philosophy and Health Care, University College, Swansea;

• Christopher Heginbotham, chief executive of the East and North Hertfordshire Health Authority;

• Jean McCarthy, lecturer in health care ethics and health care law at the Hospital for Sick Children, Great Ormond Street, London;

• Sheila McLean, International Bar Association professor of law and ethics in medicine, University of Glasgow;

• Derek Morgan, lecturer in law at the University of Wales, Cardiff;

• Jan Helge Solbakk, secretary of the Norwegian National Medical Reserach Ethics Committee, and professor of medical ethics at the University of Tromsø;

• Zbigniew Szawarski, former professor of medical ethics at the Academy of Medicine, Warsaw, presently at University College, Swansea;

• Luke Zander, senior lecturer in general practice at the United Medical and Dental Schools at St Thomas’s Hospital, London.

GMC Obedience Teach IN

The GMC Sentencing Doctors " Can they Get the Rules Right"?
Not in Southall's case they can't

The Sick Doctor Defence

The Sick Doctor Defence is an interesting piece.

It also states as follows :-

"Mary O'Rouke Barrister MDDUS and Ralph Shipway of Radcliffes Le Brasseur can be seen in glorious Technicolor performing in the case of Dr Sushant Varma. The issue of Fitness of Plead arose there as well - raised by Mary O Rouke. Interestingly enough Dr Varma has three GMC Assessor reports certifying him mentally fit. Professor Blueglass has a different view while representing the MDDUS. Transcripts are available on request from Mr Mark Ellen"

Professor Blueglass is often known as " Clueless Blueglass" by many doctors. It is interesting that the GMC Assessors on this occasion did the right thing while the defence union attempted to shove him down through the health route. As soon as this tactic was discovered, Mary O Rouke walked out as did Ralph Shipway. They walked out mid hearing leaving the doctor stranded and without legal representation. The GMC continued the rest of the hearing and struck the doctor off.

Health matters are normally discussed in camera and when in court, they are discussed privately. We are always surprised how many doctors do though attempt to pull a fast one.

We do not recommend Professor Blueglass to any doctor.

The Fugitives

Today, there was an amusing headline about a fugitive doctor.

The General Medical Council did the deed and strike him off so the public could see how great they are. That is what the media does post Shipman. Anyway, that was another scalp done for them. Of course, the doctor can still work in Europe or any other country in the world. Besides, there were many struck off doctors working somewhere in Harley St at the last investigation. The interesting article can be read above.

The GMC have what they call an International Liaison Team. Of course, this team does not work. Concerns were raised about a doctor they had with limited registration who worked in all sorts of hospitals in the UK. It was found that this doctor never had a first medical qualification and therefore was not a doctor. The International Liaison Team refused to take any action, nor did they inform the hospitals in question. Their lack of effectiveness can also be viewed here.

There is nothing intelligent about the Intelligence team.

Intelligence and International Liaison Team [ GMC Website]

The GMC Intelligence and International Liaison Team is located within the Registration Directorate. The team is involved in developing relationships with other regulatory authorities, both within the UK and overseas. One of the tasks dealt with by the team is processing notifications of disciplinary action taken by other regulators, so that the doctors cannot obtain GMC registration without their disciplinary history being taken into consideration. The team are also responsible for developing agreements with other regulators to exchange Certificates of Good Standing electronically. This makes the process quicker and reduces the risk of information being altered, as it is transmitted directly from one regulator to another.

The Intelligence and International Liaison team also deal with reports of unregistered practice – i.e. by medical practitioners who do not currently hold GMC registration and who are providing treatment or engaging in activities that would normally require the practitioner to hold GMC registration. It is an offence under S49 of the Medical Act to impersonate a registered medical practitioner, but the GMC has no remit to prosecute practitioners in these cases. The team therefore liaise with the Police and/or NHS Counter Fraud and Security Management Service (CFSMS) to take the case forward and ensure that the practitioner is charged.

To do this, the Intelligence and International Liaison team provide witness statements in relation to a doctor’s primary medical qualification(s), their registration history and their current registration status, in cases where the practitioner is being prosecuted for fraud by either the Police or the CFSMS.

Helping to provide effective control on entry to the List of Registered Medical Practitioners is the main focus of the team. To do this, they are involved in reviewing and developing a range of verification procedures (including qualification and identity checking) and anti-fraud policies. This is to reduce the risk of an unqualified or fraudulent practitioner obtaining GMC registration and therefore posing a risk to patient safety.

If you have any enquiries about the work of the Intelligence and International Liaison Team please contact Eadaoin Flynn, Intelligence and International Liaison Manager on 0161 923 6653, or by email at eflynn@gmc-uk.org.

PACA "Our experience of the GMC responses to its errors lead us only to conclude that they are arrogant, intransigent and disingenuous "

Press Release from PACA – Professionals Against Child Abuse

http://www.paca.org.uk

PACA has had major concerns about the General Medical Council's Fitness to Practice procedures in high profile cases of paediatricians who have led the way in child protection work. PACA considers the GMC’s actions have reduced the willingness with which paediatricians will report suspicions of child abuse and engage in child protection work, including acting as expert witnesses. PACA has tried to engage with the GMC, but Professor Catto, President of the GMC, and Finlay Scott, CEO, have responded that PACA is "painting a misleading picture, thus adding to the very problem they say they wish to resolve".

However, last week, PACA’s concerns were overwhelmingly supported by a motion at the Annual General Meeting of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health. The motion listed the areas of concern (see below) and called for the GMC to review the Fitness to Practice procedures as a matter of urgency. They recommended involvement of the RCPCH, the Department of Health, Department for Children, Schools and Families, Social Services Inspectorate and National Children’s Bureau. Unlike the GMC, these bodies better understand the relevant legislation and practice.

PACA is now further disturbed by the GMC’s announcement that they failed to comply with its own regulations when they applied an immediate sanction against Professor Southall, resulting in his inability to work as a doctor. The GMC’s sanction led to Professor Southall’s immediate suspension from clinical and charity work, including his honorary medical directorship of the aid agency Childhealth Advocacy International (CAI). This sanction was applied in the absence of evidence that his clinical or CAI work had caused any harm and had in fact brought enormous benefits to patients. As a direct result of this sanction, Professor Southall had resigned from his consultant post at the University Hospital of North Staffordshire. Furthermore, the actions of the GMC against him have seriously impaired CAI’s ability to raise funds for its humanitarian aid work.

At least the GMC’s inability to follow their own rules was followed by their own admission that they had made an error, resulting in a cancellation of the suspension. However, it compounds their existing inability to regulate judiciously in cases involving leading child protection professionals. Given the GMC’s inability to recognise their error in erasing Professor Sir Roy Meadow from the medical register, described by a high court judge as approaching the irrational, and apologise to him, we have little expectation that the GMC will move forward with an urgent review of its procedures, as voted for at the RCPCH AGM. It is now time that the GMC reviewed the sanctions and erasure that they applied to Professor Southall's cases in 2004 and 2007 respectively. In the view of PACA, they were both incorrect judgments.

Currently the GMC will receive complaints from anyone (having no vexatious complaints policy) - it then investigates and prosecutes these complaints, sits in judgement on its own investigation and finally decides what penalty should be applied. This is hardly a fair or balanced process and certainly not one that fulfills a doctor's right to a fair hearing under Article 6 of the European Convention. Our experience of the GMC responses to its errors lead us only to conclude that they are arrogant, intransigent and disingenuous in the way it attempts to defend the indefensible.

Southall Back on the GMC Register

The bungling and incompetent General Medical Council was today forced to acknowledge that it had made a grave error in striking beleaguered paediatrician Dr David Southall off the Medical Register. In removing Southall's name from the Register, the GMC exercised powers only made available to them under the latest version of their governing legislation. However, the case against David Southall was brought under the old [ pre 2004] rules which do not allow the GMC to strike off a doctor pending appeal of the GMC's decision unless they pose a danger to the public.

It is understood that the GMC was forced to eat humble pie at a 5 minute hearing in the High Court today where their error was acknowledged by consent order. It is further understood that pending his appeal later this year, Southall's name will be reinstated on the medical register forthwith.

Although disappointing for the proponents of the rabid smear campaign against Southall and other highly respected paediatricians, it is good to see that the General Medical Council is beginning to acknowledge its all too apparent deficiencies. No doubt Southall's forthcoming appeal will reveal many more such failings and there can be little doubt that his return to the medical register on a permanent basis cannot be long delayed.

Congratulations Dr Southall

BBC News.

Choice Quotes from the GMC

“It cannot be in patients’ interests for doctors to feel oppressed by the regulator. And it is certainly not the GMC’s wish to see doctors avoidably deflected from their core task – the delivery of high quality healthcare, focused on the need of the patient.”


Indeed in GMC today Feb/March 2006 Mr Scott wrote “Given the duty to investigate, we have sought to reach decisions as quickly as practicable, in order to reduce the period that doctors have an unresolved complaint hanging over them…. As a result, even when a complaint is concluded without further action by us, the doctor has faced a long period of stress and uncertainty. We very much recognise and regret this.”

Findlay Scott Hospital Doctor 2 March 2006

“It is certainly not our aim to make any doctor feel guilty until proven innocent… I am sorry that we unintentionally added to the stress inherent to being subject to a complaint.”

General Medical Council - Immediate Disclosure - The Danger Zone

GMC Disclosure Forms

For those doctors who exist in a false sense of security regarding the GMC probably do not realise what a GMC complaint now means. Post Shipman, the doctor is left with no rights whatsoever. Infact, it is now a violation of human rights but we can't expect the defence unions to take this up. Neither can we expect seniors to take this issue up.

It is extremely easy to get a complaint against a doctor. All you need to do is have one bad day and you can say good bye to your career. This happened to Dr M who got annoyed one day regarding the MMC's treatment of ethnic minority doctors and quite rightly told the Royal College of Surgeons that their policies were discriminatory. The President of this college had other ideas. He decided to use his powers to refer this doctor to the GMC citing "potential mental health problems". The GMC avidly took this complaint up and with the speed of grease lightening disclosed it to all his employers. Dr M's was forced through psychiatric opinions even though he had no psychiatric history. He also faced substantial additional scrutiny from his employers. The psychiatric reports cited him as normal. Following that the Royal College dropped the complaint but still the GMC continued with it. So it got more and more complicated as time moved forward sinking the doctor into more litigation and more efforts to justify himself. Of course, no one wishes to short list him now. The GMC though did not care. Infact, they recently wrote a letter to us confirming that they had no interest in the impact of a GMC investigation on the employment of a doctor. That apparently was the doctor's responsibility.


So what of this? Well, complaints don't have to happen just by losing your temper one bright day. It could just happen because a patient disliked the look of you or disliked the way you managed them. This is all possible and it happens to all of us. The problem with doctors is that they either feel that the defence unions will protect them [ as Dr Gopakumar and Dr Southall did] or they feel that these issues are of no concern to them. Well, statistics show that complaints post Shipman are hiking up. This means that every doctor in the UK at some point in life will be subject to a GMC complaint. Times are not as they were - ie frivolous complaints did not affect your employability because there was no disclosure until it was established that there was some substance to the complaint. The majority of the public are nice people and accept that doctors are human but there is always one who will complain. It is that one person that could mean the difference between a livelihood and the dole.

This brings us to the disclosure of the complainants submissions to a broad range of employers. Destruction to a doctor's career can be brought about by sheer defamation of character by a complaint circulated to all their referees. If the patient/public cited falsely that you were a murderer for instance, the GMC's policy is immediately to disclose this to all and sundry[ approximately 5 years of employers]. If you don't believe us, all you have to do is look at the disclosure forms scanned in for you. This doesn't happen when the complaint is screened, it happens immediately the complaint is taken up. We will of course allow all you doctors to decide what impact this may have on your livelihood given that no lawyer will help you sue in defamation for material sent to all your employers.

So to recap

1. A complaint is made - it may be bizarre
2. It is taken up by the Registrar as questioning your Fitness to Practise before the validity of the complaint is established [ much earlier stage than the old Fitness to Practise rules]
3. It is immediately disclosed to all your employers
4. You are asked to complete the enclosed form. The GMC then tells you that not completing this form is a breach of Good Medical Practise.
5. If you look at the GMC Fitness to Practise Rules or the Medical Act 1983, this disclosure is not cited by any of these documents. The GMC therefore made it up post Shipman Inquiry.

Overall, this issue is overlooked by all doctors nationally. Most turn a blind eye until of course they are caught in the trap themselves in which case they start to squeal. The GMC has no insight into its violation of human rights. They have spent the best part of a century violating the rights of junior and senior doctors. Many have fought against the tide such but the quality of legal representation has failed them. Even George Bernard Shaw in his day warned us all about the General Medical Council but no one paid much heed to this. We are currently allowing our regulatory body to abuse juniors until they are ruined. It should be noted that the GMC took one GP Trainee who was referred to them because 1. She got lost one day visiting a patient 2. She could not use EMISS on the first day. They subjected her to cognitive assessment and psychiatric reports. They were all normal. She passed her ECDL but the GMC insisted that she take Haloperidol. They forced a normal person to take Haloperidol [ this is a dangerous neuroleptic used for disturbed psychiatric patients] and the poor doctor suffered from so many side effects. The doctor lives in fear now as they would. Trapped in the performance procedures where the GMC continues to move the yardstick. She has been trapped there since 2002. If that is not an abuse of human rights, I have no idea what is. There are many horrific stories like this that grace the performance, conduct and health procedures. While Dr Shipman was kept on the Register by Finlay Scott while Shipman was a convicted criminal, Mr Scott has decided that the rest of the UK doctors should suffer because he was incompetent enough not to notice that Harold was a murderer.

Revalidation is due soon. Is the GMC Fit to revalidate doctors given its own fitness to practise is under scrutiny. We should consider what the GMC would do with all that data of doctors. All it needs is one person to dislike the doctor for any reason - race, creed, colour, views etc and the doctor will be down the GMC gallows.

Implementing the Civil Standard of Proof

The entire medical profession rebelled against this but failed miserably to prevent it. Little did they all know that the GMC used a standard of proof known as " an arbitrary standard". They have actually never used the criminal standard of proof. It existed in name only. It would be impossible for them to work a criminal standard of proof as it neither has powers of investigation as the police do nor can they function as the CPS. The two cases that show the GMC's slipshod attitude to standards of evidence are the cases Goparkumar v General Medical Council and General Medical Council v Southall.


In the first case [ Gopakumar v General Medical Council], the doctor won the right to appeal his GMC judgment but lost at the Court of Appeal. The case is listed below for reference. Essentially, the witness the GMC relied on had a criminal record which the GMC [ as prosecutor] failed to disclose. Infact, the GMC failed to disclose many things to Dr Gopakumar such as the full records of the patient. The police never took up the case which means it never met the criminal standard of proof. Nevertheless, the GMC felt obliged to take up the case against Gopakumar. Gopakumar though is an innocent man who has fought hard against the GMC.


The next case GMC v Southall. Dr David Southall was accused of making certain accusations to Ms M. The independent witness stated that these were not accusations but options put to her. All records of Ms M show her to be unreliable. The GMC preferred her witness statement to that of the independent witness [ as social worker]. This case has serious implications for the medical profession in the UK. If a vexatious complaint is ever made, the doctor cannot rely on the witness statement of a chaperone. If the General Medical Council had been using the criminal standard of proof as they purport to have done, then the panel would never have reached this decision.


There is no doubt that the standard of proof as defined by the Privy Council as well as case law states that they should use the civil standard of proof. The GMC though have been using an arbitary standard - neither criminal or civil for decades. In truth, the GMC decisions are filled with inadequate assessments and sheer bias. All other regulatory bodies had already adopted the civil standard of proof and the GMC had lagged behind. All doctors who had their cases tried could argue that for all these years the GMC used the wrong standard. In any case, that is the GMC for you.

The civil standard of proof is fairly dangerous for an inept regulatory body such as the GMC. I say this because the GMC lacks a gatekeeper and has no vexatious policy to prevent campaign groups with vendettas. It will no doubt become much easier now to take the complaints through all stages and to strike the doctor off. This is more a problem with the running of the GMC than anything else. It is an organisation that severely lacks in insight, holds vendettas against doctors they do not like and makes decisions that are not in the public's interest. At present, following the Shipman Inquiry, they are keen to scapegoat doctors to justify their existence. In truth, the GMC should have been abolished many years ago. Infact, George Bernard Shaw was critical of them many years ago. The Shipman Inquiry showed us that their functioning is flawed and this no doubt gives rise to human rights breaches eg denying doctors full documentation to defend their cases. In any case, the Public Policy Institute studies showed the GMC for what it is - a flawed organisation. It regularly flouts the rights of doctors and patients alike.


Case No: C1/2007/0124
Neutral Citation Number: [2007] EWCA Civ 1218
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
(MR JUSTICE UNDERHILL)
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Date: Tuesday, 2nd October 2007
Before:

LORD JUSTICE WALLER
and
LORD JUSTICE RIX
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Between:

GOPAKUMAR
Appellant
- and -

THE GENERAL MEDICAL COUNCIL
Respondent

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

(DAR Transcript of
WordWave International Limited
A Merrill Communications Company
190 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mr I Pennock (instructed by Messrs Scofield Sweeney) appeared on behalf of the Appellant.

THE RESPONDENT DID NOT APPEAR AND WAS NOT REPRESENTED

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Judgment

(As Approved by the Court)

Crown Copyright©
Lord Justice Waller:

1. By a decision of the Fitness to Practice Panel, dated 19 August 2005, Dr Gopakumar was found guilty of serious professional misconduct and the penalty imposed was one of erasure from the register. Dr Gopakumar was 65 years of age at that date, and if that decision were upheld it would spell the end of his professional career. He appealed, as was his right, in the Administrative Court, and by a reserved judgment given on 10 April 2006 his appeal was dismissed by Underhill J. Before the Fitness to Practice Panel, he was represented by solicitors and counsel and before Underhill J he was represented by solicitors and counsel; it may be that the solicitors were different but, certainly, the counsel were different. Before Underhill J he was indeed represented by leading counsel Mr Robert Jay QC. Underhill J, in fact, extended time for applying for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal, but Dr Gopakumar made no application within that extended time. He made an application in person nearly eight months out of time. His application was refused on paper by Moses LJ and it is a renewed application which has come before us today. Dr Gopakumar was to conduct that application in person, but at the 59th minute of the 11th hour he instructed Mr Ian Pennock to conduct the application for him.

2. Dr Gopakumar had put in a skeleton argument of well over 100 pages. The thrust of that skeleton was to suggest that there had been a witch-hunt against him, that there had been a telling of lies by the complainants and that a terrible injustice had been done. When Mr Pennock saw the case and saw the skeleton and worked on what points could be argued, he very realistically appreciated that much of what the doctor was saying in that very lengthy skeleton argument would not produce points which could be argued before the Court of Appeal -- in particular because this is a second appeal, and it is appreciated by Mr Pennock that, if permission is going to be given by the Court of Appeal to bring a second appeal, it will not give permission unless it considers that the appeal raises an important point of principle or practice or there is some other compelling reason for the Court of Appeal to hear it.

3. What Mr Pennock has sought to do is to identify what he suggests is an important point of principle which contains certain facets. It relates first of all to the direction given by the legal assessor to the original panel, a point considered by the judge as a preliminary point in his judgment. It concerns the question of whether evidence of the character of one of the complainants --which was not put before the panel and not originally put before the judge -- should have been accepted as material to go before the judge, and should be material which should go before the Court of Appeal. Before coming to the details of that, I should just describe very briefly what the proceedings before the panel were about. The first related to a complaint by a female, A, and that was not as serious a complaint as the one relating to a female, B. Indeed, it is unnecessary in this judgment to say anything about the proceedings so far as A is concerned -- simply to say that the panel found Dr Gopakumar’s conduct inappropriate but they did not find it indecent. It was the complaint by B which formed the very serious complaint, and that involved consultations between B and Dr Gopakumar during the period January 2004 to 18 February 2004. What the panel found was that there were some inappropriate comments made by the doctor during certain of those consultations, but the most serious matter that they found established was B’s allegation that, when she consulted Dr Gopakumar on 18 February 2004 (and she did so in the context of having taken her son to see the doctor), he conducted an inappropriate and indecent examination of her.

4. According to her, she informed the doctor that she might be pregnant. He performed an abdominal examination, during the course of which (according to her) he put his hands beneath her knickers or thong, pressed on her pubic bone, pressed in the creases between her legs and the pubic bone, and pressed where the outer labia starts. The experts called before the panel could provide examples where an abdominal examination might have been clinically indicated -- for example, ectopic pregnancy -- if that was suspected; but both were agreed that the examination as described by Ms B was inappropriate and indeed indecent. What the panel found was that Ms B was a credible witness (as indeed they found in relation to Ms A) and they found that examination had taken place and that it was indecent. So far as penalty was concerned, they found that it was a gross breach of trust and therefore the appropriate penalty was erasure. Now, before the panel, it seems that there was no attack on the character of either A or B. It looks as though that was a deliberate decision, in that it was known that B had been cautioned for travelling in a motor car that had been stolen, and there had been disclosed to those representing the doctor the medical records of B, which had at least one entry which would indicate that she had at some stage been taking drugs, including intravenous drugs.

5. The legal assessor of the panel, when directing the panel on character, founded the direction to be given on the good character direction that is given in criminal trials. So it had two aspects. First, it had the aspects of character supporting credibility, and then it had an aspect of the good character leading to the likelihood that a defendant in a criminal trial (or in this instance a person charged with professional misconduct) would be unlikely to have committed the conduct alleged, having regard to the character. So far as that second aspect is concerned, no criticism could be made of the direction: it concentrates on the good character of the doctor and directs absolutely in accordance with the standard direction (the JSB standard direction) in a criminal trial. So far as the first aspect is concerned, however, it contains a substantial difference. The direction read in this way:

“I will go on to say this, yes: good character is relevant in two aspects of matters when you are asked to consider it. It is evidence that you should take into account in his favour in these two ways: in the first place, as the doctor has given evidence, good character supports his credibility. Good character supports every witness's credibility. The doctor is of good character. His good character supports his credibility. That means it is a factor which you should take into account when deciding whether you believe or disbelieve his evidence, or are not sure.”

6. So it contained a sentence which related to every witness, and, as the judge accepted, in the criminal context that would not be a satisfactory direction. The defendant is entitled to a good character direction in supporting credibility, and the JSB direction certainly does not contain any suggestion that the jury are entitled to assume that a witness has a good character and that such good character supports every witness’s credibility. The judge had to deal with whether that direction led to there being (or was significant in possibly reaching) an invalid decision, and he decided that it was not. What he said was:

“As regards the reference to all the witnesses being of good character, I do not think this undermines substantially the main point being made: read as a whole, the direction clearly focuses principally on the credit to be given to Dr. Gopakumar. Nor in any event do I think that the practice in a criminal trial of drawing attention only to the good character of the defendant, and not of the prosecution witnesses, represents any fundamental principal of justice. I can see nothing inherently wrong – as a matter of fairness or of logic – in a tribunal assessing the credibility of a ‘prosecution’ witness taking into account what may be known about his or her good character: nor could Mr Jay suggest why this should be so. The statement that Miss B was of good character was not in any real sense wrong. It is clear that her record had been checked; and I do not believe that the only matter discovered, namely the criminal caution relied on by Mr. Jay, can conceivably be regarded as damaging to her credibility.”

7. The first point taken is as to whether it is right for the judge to say that drawing attention only to the good character of the defendant and not of the prosecution witnesses represents any fundamental principle of justice. We have given some consideration to that point, asking ourselves during the argument as to why it is that there is not in the direction normally given in a criminal trial a direction similar to that given by the legal assessor in this case. It seems to us possible that the logic is this: that a defendant cannot attack the character of a witness without putting himself at risk and having his character put in. Thus it can be said in a criminal trial: simply because the witness does not put in their character, there should not be an assumption that that witness is of good character, and such a witness is not entitled thus to effectively the same good character direction as a defendant. Therefore, as it seems to me, the judge may be wrong in thinking that there is no fundamental principle of justice involved in relation to the character direction given in this case. Thus, I would say that there is an arguable point in relation to the character direction before one reaches the next, but also significant, point. It will be seen that the judge had in mind, at this stage of the judgment, the criminal caution relied on by Mr Jay. He did not have in mind -- because it had never been drawn to his attention and never drawn to the attention of the panel -- the possibility that Ms B was a drug user, and a drug user in a fairly major sense, it could be suggested by the note in her medical record.

8. What is now being sought on this appeal is to put in that evidence in relation to drug abuse, and indeed it is, as I understand it, being suggested that the records actually disclosed by the GMC were not as extensive as they should have been and that there may be other entries relating to the drug abuse of B. The difficulty in Mr Pennock’s way and in the doctor’s way, in seeking to put that evidence in before the Court of Appeal is, as it seems to me, obvious. First, there seems to have been a tactical decision taken not to put in that evidence before the professional panel. Secondly, there seems to have been a decision not to put that evidence in before the judge. There was a clear reference to this evidence in the skeleton argument of Mr Jay, which would be placed before the court before the hearing even commenced (paragraph 39, page 216 of the bundle). The inference to be drawn from that fact is that, again, Mr Jay took a deliberate decision not to put it in. However, it is said that in fact it was inadvertence on Mr Jay’s part and that he simply failed to remember what he had put in his skeleton and that is why no application was made.

9. In the event, what actually happened at the hearing before the judge was that the judge gave notice that he was going to hand down his judgment which, as I have read out, referred simply to the criminal caution, and before he handed it down notice was given to the judge that those acting for the doctor wished to now put in some fresh evidence which related to the medical records of B. In the result, in fact, Mr Jay was uninstructed and a Dr Amrhein was instructed to make the arguments to Underhill J that he should adjourn giving judgment until the medical records had been placed before him and until he had had a proper opportunity of appreciating the significance of those records. What was appreciated by those acting for the GMC and Dr Amrhein was that, since there had been a decision not to put these records in before the panel, the difficulty was that, if these records were to be put in, that would involve giving Ms B an opportunity to deal with those records. It is clear that the judge decided to hand down his judgment, and what is suggested is that he did not give any reasons for not adjourning or give any reasons for not taking account of this evidence. I, for my part, am not convinced that he did not give some reasons. It seems to me that if one looks at the transcript of what went on before the judge, before he handed down his judgment, one can see that at the end of that transcript it says he could deal with the application now (that is the application to adjourn and the application to put in fresh evidence) and it would seem highly likely that he gave some reasons as to why he was not going to do so. I have to say that it seems to me very unlikely that this point will be a point that the doctor will be able to succeed on in the Court of Appeal. But, since in my view there is a point of principle that does arise on the direction given, it will be wrong not to give the doctor and his advisers the opportunity of arguing the evidence of point. What will be necessary will be to have a clear understanding of the facts as they were before the FTP.

10. It will not be sufficient for there to be submissions based on some form of inference. It will have to be demonstrated whether there was a deliberate decision or not to put in this medical evidence and whether to attack B’s character or not. There will need to be similarly clear evidence as to what decision was taken so far as the judge was concerned and then there will need to be obtained the further transcript -- which I would think exists -- of the judge’s reasons as to why he would not admit this evidence. Once all that is obtained, those advising the doctor will have to consider whether it is a point that they really can argue or not argue, in addition to the point on the direction. I should make clear that Mr Pennock suggests that simply because the judge now knew of the medical record before he gave his judgment, he was bound to take that evidence into account. That seems to me to be a bad point. The question that will arise on any occasion, when it is before the court, whether it be before the tribunal or whether it be before the judge, is whether the evidence is admissible. If the evidence is admissible, then it will be taken into account; but if it is not admissible and should not be before the court, well then, it is right the court should disregard it. So I would make it clear that none of the points raised by the doctor in his skeleton argument are matters which should be grounds of appeal from hereon in. And again, so that there is no doubt about it, equally those grounds that were argued before the judge, other than the question of the appropriate direction, are not matters which can now be considered by the Court of Appeal. The appeal should be limited to the one point of practice or principle which is the adequacy of this direction, which may carry with it the possibility -- but it is only a bare possibility -- that the applicant may be able to establish evidence of character, by reference to matters that were not sought to be put in the courts below. I would grant permission on that limited basis.

Lord Justice Rix:

11. I agree.

Order: Application granted

How Very Crafty!

While we are debating a number of issues about the GMC, one is the function of the GMC Commitee members or shall we call them Trustees. The GMC is a charity. It has no charitable function and continues to violate the basic rights of hundreds of doctors per year. Being a Charity is of course a tax benefit to them. Afterall, the General Medical Council is a business where it takes from the poor [doctors] and gives to the rich [ lawyers]. Afterall, that is what the GMC does best, it litigates. It litigates to save its reputation. The Medical Act 1983 has bestowed a few powers upon it. One such power is to ensure doctors have no human rights at all.


We were though rather intrigued by Professor Alan Craft on the Child Protection website. Professor Alan Craft was a GMC Committee member and a Charity Trustee. The blog tells us that for many years, he didn't do much to raise the awareness of harassment in child protection professionals. Well, Old Crafty we hear likes to move where the wind blows ie he doesn't have the courage of his conviction. He is pictured on the blog holding his GMC Card. Well, we think he looks pretty in GMC colours [ie black]. Actually, the three of them look ready to be funeral directors rather than those at the top of the medical profession. Well, I suspect it suits them given the GMC death toll is rather high. Actually, the death rate of doctors at the GMC is so high apparently that if it had been a pyschiatric unit, there would have been an inquiry.

Anyway, Old Crafty is said to have edited the motion for the "No Confidence in the GMC" vote at the recent AGM Meeting. Apparently, it was all edited down [watered down] to "Grave concerns". We all ought to forgive old Crafty because at his age, he has forgotten how to stand by his colleagues and back them 100 percent. Well, once bitten by the GMC, Committee members always have green blood flowing down their veins no matter what. We cannot expect anything else of committee members who remain spineless.

For 10 years we have watched the Royal College of Paediatricians act like an organisation with no backbone. It is its lack of backbone that is causing the loss of lives. We must not forget to mention the fact that the Royal College of Paediatricians have had cosy conversations with Penny Mellor. Well, Len Tyler has anyway. When these issues are mentioned to Len Tyler, he develops what we call "a phase of golden silence". For someone who talks so much, this silence is amazing. Perhaps a frog jumped down his throat?

Finlay Scott's Idea of GMC Procedures that are " Fair, Objective, Transparent and Free From Discrimination"

Written by Dr Sheila Mann 5.12.2000 adviser to the GMC. Left the GMC as screener and rehired recently as panellist. Advises the Chancellor on the Mental Capacity Act.

Finlay Scott in GMC News [ March/April 2008] ""We are committed to processes and procedures that are fair, objective, transparent and free from discrimination"

The GMC provided information that showed them to have conducted a discreet inquiry, a non procedural sercretive unlawful investigation. Blake Dobson of the GMC later apologised for the distressed caused. The GMC attended court in 2004 and stated that " this was Blake Dobson's personal opinion and that this was not the GMC's position".The doctor was never informed of the investigation. It also concealed two reports from the Trust in question. 1999 and 2001 Reports that verified that the concerns raised were legitimate.

The two internal reports were listed in 1999 and 2001. The 2001 is available here and concluded that the concerns were well founded. These were disclosed in 2005.

The 2001 Executive Summary stated the following Amongst other things, it concluded that:

(a) “Patient care was clearly affected by the failures identified”;

(b) “The Directorate failed to take appropriate action when the allegations were made in a statement by Dr Pal”;

(c) “Although medical and nursing staff were concerned about the range of issues...no one voiced their concerns except Dr Pal which either demonstrated a general acceptance of the issues or staff felt unable to raise concerns”.

Finlay Scott's Fictional Talent

Everyone knows Finlay Scott has a talent for being economical with the truth. Well, what can one expect following his little problem of allowing Dr Harold Shipman to work in Hyde for all those years. Finlay keeps a low profile over all this.

Finlay though has been under fire for being economical with the real statistics. regarding the number of child protection professionals who have been referred to the General Medical Council by vexatious complainants. Striking David Southall off was one of the biggest mistakes committed by the General Medical Council especially on the witness statements of a woman who has always had problems with the truth.

Finlay would like to win his points with the public by being the knight for those who manipulate and lie. Spearheading the complaints of those who will lie and manipulate will only get him a bad name and it is getting him a bad name. Finlay Scott on the BBC News today defending himself. We wonder who he is going to get himself out the the large black hole he has dug up for himself.

Finlay states as follows "Our critics are trying to create the impression that the GMC is intent on unfairly persecuting paediatricians involved in child protection work. Nothing could be further from the truth." Of course, the GMC is persecuting paediatricians just as they do whistleblowers. Both raise concerns about vulnerable people don't they? The GMC makes it its business to silence doctors who raise concerns in the interest of patients.

So what is the truth Mr Scott? Is the truth the fact that the GMC secretly met with the group of dysfunctional patient group [anti msbp] thereby giving them special treatment above all others? Is this why Finlay Scott will not tell us the number of complaints made by ex felon and serial complainer Penny Mellor and her associates. Will he also tell us how much doctor's funds he has wasted on catering for the imagination of Penny Mellor? Will he also tell us why he has no vexatious complaints policy implemented into the GMC procedures? Will he also tell us why his lawyers Toni Smerdon and Juliet Oliver have stated that the doctors employment issues is not the GMC's concern?

This is important detail concealed by Finlay Scott. That is because Finlay Scott doesn't like to talk about uncomfortable issues. He prefers to mislead the media.

Finlay Scott as chief executive of the General Medical Council is wasting hard earned doctor's subscription finances funding the whim of a housewife. Isn't that what the truth is Mr Scott? And that is Fact Not Fiction.

By the way, recently yearly subscriptions for doctors were raised again to £390 per year.

Dr Tushar Bhadra - Veteran Anti GMC Campaigner Speaks Out

Tushar Bhadra singlehandedly beat the GMC's top gun legal team to obtain the rights for doctors to sue the GMC at an Employment Tribunal. He also achieved a finding against Mr Ralph Shipway, the Medical Protection Society's lawyer. He had complained to the Law Society who ruled for him. Dr Bhadra persists in his battle against the injustice meted out on him at the GMC.

On Disbanding the GMC.

I agree. Indeed, at the time of Bristol enquiry and thereafter - the GMC had enough power to regulate improper acts of doctors - if it wanted to. But it did not want to do the vigilance. In stead - it created more and more Regulations - to gain more and more power. In stead of vigilance - it initially hit the ethnic minority doctors very hard - for very little reason to prove it is doing its job.

In my case - the GMC suspended my Registration - on 22.7.98 - by proving me guilty of SPM - without any investigations on the complaint, by denying me case notes to even give a response to the allegations it received from a Trust - who made the complaint because I had asked for compensation for breach of contract. Two case where I was allegedly found to have been guilty of putting patients lives in danger - had no adverse incidence report.

In One case - a case of chest pain - the GMC lawyers told total lies to deny me the case notes. In another case - of Bronchial Asthma - the allegation was I had put his life in danger - because his peak flow was nil - for over 80 minutes. My Registration was effectively taken away on such impossible allegation. My lawyers did not act to defend me.

At the end - the GMC erased my Registration on 1.9.06 - because I had stated that it did all the cheatings - since 1997 to prove me guilty on 22.7.98 - of incompetence - by denial of case notes - because I was naive then. But that would not have been enough - so they grafted a false CV - AD/1 on my name - without even my knowledge - to prove me dishonest - which was needed as the spice to establish SPM. I had not committed any kind of misconduct since that alleged date of 8.1.97.

That was just to humiliate me for my race discrimination etc complaint.

The GMC do not know what to do with the power it is fetching through the Privy Council - by DIY legislation and then having those approved at the Privy Council. Because of the extreme degree of incompetence - it has gone - into areas beyond its usual targets - the ethnic minority doctors - because it has now the power and it is therefore made to apply where it has no idea as to what to do. The field your mention is one of them.

All such acts - only does harm the NHS. Often we have to go to GP surgeries to be seen by nurse practitioners. They do not have the GMC to regulate their standard. The doctors relent their responsibility - by shifting patients to them - so that less patients means less scrutiny by the GMC on doctors.

The GMC is totally unfit to protect patients and induce what is good for the patients. It should be abolished.

What the GMC Committee Members Say - Dr Alex Freeman

CLIENT: GMCMATTER:

Independent External Review

FILE REF: MLS/G3352/18/EWSDATE: 12 September 2002

Dr Alex Freeman said that she had been involved in the medico-political scene since 1990, initially in relation to the doctors' hours campaign. She had a pedigree through the BMA junior doctors' committee in that respect. She had always had an interest in the GMC, in the sense of getting young doctors to be heard. She had stood in the 1999 election as an independent candidate and a bit to her surprise had been elected. Her election address was light-hearted but she said that she would represent the interests of doctors on the GMC.
She was at the time of her election a Registrar in general practice. Since qualifying she had become a part-time principal in general practice.
When she was first elected to the GMC she was invited to attend for an induction day. She met the President and the chairs of the various committees. Alex Freeman had started at the GMC in November 1999 and her membership lasted until the end of October 2004. However, the recent suggested changes at the GMC which would be voted on the next day might bring that forward to June 2003. She would vote against those proposals as she thought they would curtail the amount of representation which she could offer to her electorate.
The GMC had various unofficial groupings. One was a grouping of general practitioners. They went to dinner at the Royal College of General Practitioners and it was a completely informal affair. Another group which Alex Freeman was involved with was the Womens' Group, which she organised.
Alex Freeman could not recall who was present at the meeting of the General Practitioners informal grouping. She thought that Donald Irvine was there, Dr Goss, Sir Denis Pereira Gray and Dr Rennie amongst others.
Alex Freeman was not politically-motivated to speak before her peers, she felt that she spoke for doctors who had elected her. She had the impression that Donald Irvine had tended to listen mostly to lay members and appointed members, rather than elected medical members in any event. In order to speak to a Council meeting one had to try to catch the eye of the President or the Chief Executive. The Chief Executive would then write names on a list, who were then called upon to speak.
Alex Freeman said that she and Dr Edwin Borman had been good friends for some time.
Alex Freeman had sat on the ARC, PPC, the Interim Orders Committee, had been invited to sit on the Registration Committee (although she had never actually sat) and the PCC. She had been asked to sit on panels of all the fitness to practice committees except the Health Committee. In relation to other members there was never a question of whether somebody should be co-opted. People were just asked whether they were available or not.
When Alex Freeman had been elected, there had been a 50% turnover of membership. She had been sent a pack containing the rules and other documents. She had not really been trained in how to sit on Committees, but simply learned while she sat on the job, as it were. She was in a sense thrown right in at the deep end. However, when external associates were appointed, the GMC organised some training for them including about cultural awareness etc. However, Alex Freeman had still not received cultural awareness training although she had participated in training for the new associates as an ‘experienced’ PCC panelist. The same system appeared to operate with other committees, such as interim orders where, again, Alex Freeman had never received any formal training.
Alex Freeman had been elected to the ARC and sat on that committee. The oddity was that every member had to put a preference either to sit or not to sit on any particular committee or whether they were indifferent about the matter. It was possible that a person could be voted onto a committee even if they had positively said that they were not interested in sitting on it. All the forms were returned to Peter Pinto de Sa.
Alex Freeman described the PCC committee room. It was a sort of horseshoe arrangement. The result was that a member of the panel might end up virtually opposite or next to the defendant doctor. That could be very intimidating, especially for a woman.
Alex Freeman had sat on three GMC committees where recusal applications had been made - one in the ARC, and two in the PCC. She herself had offered a recusal when sitting on the Preliminary Proceedings Committee because she practised in the same geographical area as the doctor under investigation. The rest of the panel had asked her to withdraw her offer of a voluntary recusal because she was the only doctor on the panel from the same specialty. She had seen other recusals where a panel member had, for example, taught a particular doctor under investigation. Recusals were not unusual, and nor were applications. For example, the President himself was challenged during the Bristol case.
Alex Freeman was not "pitched against the GMC". That was not the case at all. It was simply that as an elected member of the GMC she felt concerned that it appeared many decisions it made were made before members had even seen them or asked to consider them. The recommendations made in Council papers were rarely defeated or amended. Lots of the items were presented by the Chief Executive or members of staff, although sometimes they were also presented by Committee chairs. Often members were presented with a series of recommendations and sometimes there was very little discussion about them. There were moves to push them through to a vote before they had been discussed sufficiently. There was an ethos of the bureaucracy managing the Council, which in Alex Freeman’s view was wrong.
George Staple asked whether a certain amount of management of the Council was not necessary to get the Council's business done. Alex Freeman said that the problem was that the standing orders were not followed. Some members were quite naive and just voted in the way they were asked to. That applied to both lay and medical members. It was inevitable that some members would simply be lobby-fodder. Elections threw up all sorts of different people.
Dr Borman asked some questions about it and Alex Freeman wanted to know what the expenditure on the President was. Dr Borman therefore asked his questions and also asked about the President's position. It was the first time a lot of members found out about the President's honorarium and the fact that it was equivalent to a consultant's A+ merit award. Alex Freeman had presumed beforehand that the President would merely be reimbursed for his expenses. The award seemed to be high as she imagined that Donald Irvine's annual income before he became President of the GMC would have been that of a GP, possibly around the £80,000 mark and that he would be reimbursed to cover lost earnings. She also discovered for the first time how much was given to screeners as honoraria. All that amounted to £800,000. Consequently there was a gap of about a missing £1 million. She could not understand where the rest of the money had gone as she could do a rough calculation of the expenses involved in running one or two panels of the PCC. The explanation for the accounts only covered half of the £1.7 million expenditure on members' fees and expenses included in it. That had set Dr Colman on the trail of the expenses issue and the whole issue about the GMC being a charity and its members being trustees. Alex Freeman had wanted to find out what was in the accounts because she was now a trustee she would be financially responsible as a trustee for any gaps in the accounts. She was fully behind Dr Colman in finding the root of the expenses issue. She thought it was important. There still had not been a full explanation of the issue. She and a lot of other members had not known about the President's honorarium and how the attendance allowance had appeared out of thin air to benefit lay members.
The whole episode left a very bad taste in Alex Freeman's mouth. GWS explained he did not wish to put words into Alex Freeman's mouth but wondered whether she would agree with the following. The way in which the GMC had been operating was if you kept your head down and your nose clean you were rewarded. If you did not you were not rewarded. People tried to find ways to stop members saying things. One ex-member of the GMC had told Alex Freeman that they had been threatened that if they did not do certain things certain consequences would occur. He was a Freemason and the person who was another member who was also a Freemason had made this threat. Freemasons tended not to declare themselves. That had all been about the Bristol case. The only way it was possible to talk to other members of the GMC was via membership of committees. An awful lot of business was done informally and if you were not in the in-group you were not involved. Alex Freeman found it very worrying that the staff at the GMC knew more about its business than she did. When you had a two-day council meeting and members were presented with several inches of papers to read it was not surprising that they became swamped and did not know everything that was going on. Somebody else had told her that when they first became a screener it became apparent to them that there were a whole load of complaints in respect of practice procedures which had simply been dropped and never considered. That meant that the GMC was taking it upon itself to decide things and that the complainant became immaterial.

What the GMC Committee Members Say - Dr Richard Coleman

CLIENT:
GMCMATTER:
Independent External Review
FILE REF: MLS/G3352/00018DATE: 18 September 2002

Richard Coleman said that he was a member of the GMC for 5 years until 1999, so he had some views and experiences of the GMC. Richard Coleman questioned whether the profession was in fact self-governing. Was it right for the medical profession to pay for its own regulation in such a case? He was less concerned about who sat in judgment on doctors, so as long as the process was robust.

He considered that it was not robust enough to hand out the sort of heavy sentences which it did. Richard Coleman had written an article in the BMJ which questioned that process. The profession would do better if it opted out of the judgment side of the GMC's work and dealt more with the representation side. It was odd to have BMA members sitting on the regulatory body.

Richard Coleman had trained as a General Practitioner . He worked as a locum GP before developing his own practice in occupational medicine. He had been elected to the GMC after he had gained some publicity in relation to doctors and advertising issues. He had judicially reviewed the GMC on the basis that the advertising rules at the time were an infringement of his rights. He lost that case and he also lost the appeal. Subsequently, however the Monopolies and Mergers Commission looked at the issue of GP's advertising, saw sense and insisted that the GMC changed the rules. He gained, therefore, an ultimate victory. The case which he had wished to take to the European Court of Human Rights as a result of the failure of his domestic appeal, therefore did not happen. In the end that case was settled for £12,000, of which Richard Coleman gave half to his counsel. . When Richard Coleman left the GMC, there was a core of disgruntlement with the GMC of which he was aware. That was particularly focused on disgruntlement with Sir Donald Irvine and his management of the GMC, and a lack of transparency. Things were manipulated and put through Council. Donald Irvine had had a goal and insisted that it was achieved. He was very emollient in the way in which he put things across, but when the minutes came round issues had been hardened up in a way in which it was not possible to fully support. Things seemed to be manipulated in a preset direction. Richard Coleman had crossed DI about the Professional Conduct Committee ( PCC). He had thought that the committees of the Council were being used as a tool to achieve a specific end. Doctors were being scapegoated to engineer political and public opinion by the PCC and that seemed unjust to Richard Coleman.

One particular area of difficulty was the idea that doctors should be punished in the PCC in a way which would provide a deterrent. Donald Irvine was also very influential in the selection of chairman for the PCC. It had got to the point that counsel appearing before a PCC could walk into the room for a doctor's hearing, look at the members sitting on the committee, and know the outcome. Some members became known as GMC men or women, others were more open-minded. This could be said of both lay and medical members. Some members had sought patronage and power and that was how the thing was able to happen. Donald Irvine worked with an inner circle of members who were extremely influential. Richard Coleman had not felt too extreme, because after he had spoken in meetings people would come up to him in, e.g. the toilets and say that they were very glad he had said what he had. However, they appeared not to be prepared to follow that through with their votes.

Shortly after Richard Coleman had arrived at the GMC, a doctor wrote to all members of Council with a complaint. Two or three members raised this with the President who said that if members felt concerned they had a duty as members to look into the matter. Richard Coleman had written some questions to Finlay Scott and received very unsatisfactory answers from him. He communicated with the doctor who had raised the issue. In the end, Finlay Scott had tried to suggest that Richard Coleman was acting as an advocate for this particular doctor.

The issue concerned a report which was quite lax, contained factual errors but was very influential. The doctor concerned questioned the quality of that report. Richard Coleman had asked whether he could see the papers which went to the screener of the case. Finlay Scott had said that Richard Coleman was acting as the doctor's advocate. Richard Coleman was a member of the council and had legitimate concerns about the process. He was not questioning the substantive decision, just teasing away at the process. Later a handbook had come out giving guidance on how the screeners should and could conduct their enquiries. This was not done sufficiently rigorously in this case.
Richard Coleman had been refused access to the papers, although he had asked about three times. So in the end, Richard Coleman had had to write to the doctor concerned and say that he could not help him. The excuses which Finlay Scott had given were not strong. Richard Coleman had sat on a case concerning a psychiatrist's report on a nurse, where the doctor concerned and put in something, in good faith, which turned out not to be true. That doctor had got hauled up to a hearing even though he had had no intention to deceive. That had struck Richard Coleman as being a similar case. This had all led Richard Coleman to begin to question things more. He realised that there was a barrier between him as a member and what the GMC wanted him to know. Finlay Scott had once told him that transparency was like a greenhouse - you could look in but not enter the room. To RC, that was not transparency at all.
The particular case which Richard Coleman had just mentioned was an example of how things worked. He was a Council member and the President had given him the impression that he had the authority to question things. However when he did so and it got to the President, the door was slammed shut in his face. After that, Richard Coleman thought that Finlay Scott had seen him as a member of the "awkward squad". That was slightly tied up with Richard Coleman’s comments on freemasonry. The GMC had been discussing a code of conduct. They were discussing the issue of relevant interests which needed to be disclosed. He had asked Donald Irvine and Finlay Scott, in the presence of Lady Tumin, whether Finlay Scott was a freemason. Finlay Scott had said that he was not prepared to tell Richard Coleman. Richard Coleman had then been concerned because the President had said that he would put Finlay Scott in charge of dealing with the code of conduct and working out what interests were relevant and needed to be disclosed. Richard Coleman felt that that was not appropriate in view of the Home Affairs Committee saying that those who acted in a judicial capacity they should declare their interest as freemasons.
Richard Coleman had mentioned this whole episode in front of the whole Council. He discussed this with a member of the GMC staff who had agreed with him that all interests should be declared. But after this incident, Finlay Scott had turned on him. Finlay Scott had refused to tell Richard Coleman whether he was a freemason even when it was relevant to the case which Richard Coleman was looking at at the time.
The rules had now changed and freemasonry was in fact something which voluntarily should be disclosed as a relevant interest. Richard Coleman had wondered at the time why Finlay Scott should not declare it. When the GMC had taken out an injunction against Richard Coleman, in a statement which Finlay Scott made to court, he made Richard Coleman out to look like some sort of radical anti-freemasonry campaigner. He thinks four members of the GMC now admitted to being freemasons. The code said that it was a relevant interest, but it was only voluntary for members to declare that. Before this was agreed, Finlay Scott had said in a newspaper that members had to declare any interest as a freemason. Richard Coleman had telephoned the paper and told them that that was not true. At that time only some months later did it change. Andrew Ketteringham had then written to the press saying that Finlay Scott was not a freemason. Richard Coleman had written to Andrew Ketteringham at that point asking why he had done so and whether he had checked with Finlay Scott whether he was a freemason or not or whether Finlay Scott had simply refused to tell him and he had assumed something. It turned out that the latter was the case.
RC had stood for re-election in 1999. He came fifty-fourth and so just missed out on being elected. He had been disappointed to go at the time. Being on the GMC was exciting and it made you feel important. People had told him that they were on his side. Finlay Scott had, however, painted Richard Coleman as a bit of a stirrer. He did not think that the other doctors at the GMC had held that view. He simply came from a different perspective as he had chosen a different way of life. He had a fascination with the knowledge base of medicine and thought that it was a very fascinating world to work in.
In Richard Coleman’s view, General Medical Practice was a good document. It had, however, started as guidelines and then become hardened up to a dogma so that lawyers would use it against doctors. Members had accepted it as a gentle guidance to doctors and then accepted it as dogma.
Richard Coleman had been the only one who had voted against it on those grounds. When the minutes of the Council meeting had come out, his name had not been put down as objecting to it. Finlay Scott had told him that that was not possible. Anthony Graham who was the BMA representative had thought, along with Richard Coleman, that this was disgraceful as there should have been a proper record of his dissent on that particular issue.
Donald Irvine used to threaten the GMC with the fact that he had the Government on his back, following Shipman and the Bristol enquiry etc. Richard Coleman did not mind who governed doctors provided it was done fairly. It was not every doctor who wanted to work for the NHS. There are many branches of medicine not within the NHS Occupational medicine for example. The problem with medicine was that it had been mucked about with by the Government. Doing the things which the Government wanted were not always worth doing. The NHS was a system at its knees and the BMA did not look after the interests of doctors. Richard Coleman likened doctors working in the NHS to pilots working in an unsafe aircraft. Bad for their and their patients' health. It was easy for the Government to ask what the GMC was going to do as it was not going to have to produce any results. The Government abused its power and the profession by promising things which it itself could not deliver. There was something weak about the BMA, because it had strong ties with the GMC. The flaw of doctors themselves was that they loved to be loved. As a result, they were prepared to roll over to government and were not hard-nosed enough to look after their own interests (and those of their patients).
Richard Coleman’s main concern related to the process of the PCC committee. He had sat on a PCC for two years. It had come to ahead when he was sitting on a panel which erased a coloured doctor. He had felt very uncomfortable about that on the way home. He had written to the defence barrister and said to him that he hoped that the doctor appealed the decision. He had written expressing concerns about the Chairman of the panel (To Donald Irvine) who had been associated with a number of controversial decisions. The Chairman concerned, in Richard Colemans opinion, used PCC as a way of making a sop to public opinion. He had felt unhappy about the in camera discussions. He felt that the panel was manipulated.
There were only five members on the panel and the legal assessor had possibly have been a Mr Rogers. Richard Coleman had written to his defence society as a result and had been prepared to speak to the defence barrister. As a result the GMC tried to injunct him. That case went before Pumphrey LJ and was successful. Richard Coleman’s solicitor had not been interested in the matter at all. He had sent Richard Coleman’s counsel a copy of a draft of his witness statement before Richard Coleman had even had the chance to look at it. Pumphrey LJ had said that he would not stop the injunction, but he would not preclude the Privy Council from having access to the minutes of the in camera discussions if it wished. The case did go on appeal to the Privy Council which decided that there was no case to answer in respect of some of the accusations. The decision of the PCC was quashed and the doctor concerned later had his sentence lightened to a six-month suspension. The PCC decision had been split and gone on a majority. When a panel of 5 members splits 3:2, if a chairman had a particular view he could simply close the whole case down in a way that he wanted. It was not as if the Chairman was trying to seek unanimity before a majority decision was made and enough.
In the Appeal by Roylance in the Bristol case his side had sought access to the in camera minutes as they felt this would show bias by the Chairman. Permission was refused. Richard Coleman was with Donald Irvine when he was told of this decision by Finlay Scott and he seemed very relieved. Later the suggestion to stop recording the in camera minutes was made. The necessary changes to the law were put to the Privy Council along with a raft of other legislation. In July 2000 the GMC looked at the issue but did not as a body consent instead asked to revisit it in November 2000. However the day after the GMC July meeting Donald Irvine consented to the changes on behalf of the GMC (without their consent).
In November 2000, item 9B looked at it again. Finlay Scott gave such a one sided argument to the GMC members that to Richard Coleman’s mind they were not sufficiently informed of the facts to be in a position to decide. Council was misinformed. Finlay Scott had said that there was no purpose in having the minutes available, because the discussions of the Panel in camera would always remain confidential. Richard Coleman had written a critique of that statement using the decisions in Roylance and the comments of Pumphrey LJ in his own case to show that was not always the case. Richard Coleman believed that Finlay Scott had deceived Council about the potential importance of the minutes of such discussions. He thought there would be no problem of recording the minutes or of them being used for all appeals.
On the 14th December 2001, Richard Coleman had written to Mrs Sarah Bedwell about Donald Irivine’s behaviour. There were two complaints. One was about a change of rules before council had agreed it. The second was that Donald Irvine sanctioned Finlay Scott's misrepresentation of the facts. Sarah Bedwell had said that there was no jurisdiction for her to look into the matter. Richard Coleman could not understand why Donald Irvine acting as a manager was not subject to the fitness to practice procedures when doctors in NHS management would be subject to them. He had written to Sir Cyril Chantler about this, as Chairman of the Standards Committee. He had said that he did not want to make a judgement about whether the President should be included within the procedures or not. Sarah Bedwell had said that there was no question of serious professional misconduct on the part of the President but had not looked at the evidence. Graham Catto was not able to do anything either. Richard Coleman considered that the President appeared to be above the law.
Richard Coleman also made an official complaint about Finlay Scott on the 17th January. Richard Coleman had been told that the person to make this complaint to was Prof. McDevitt. The complaints included the handling of the debate about the in camera minutes by Finlay Scott and his deception of council members. This did not seem an appropriate referral as Prof. McDevitt had spoken strongly in favour of stopping the recording of the minutes. Understandably, Prof. McDevitt saw no grounds for complaint.
Richard Coleman had written to the Charity Commission complaining about the treatment of these two complaints by the GMC. They said that they had no authority to look into the matter and that the GMC had written to them to say that they might be setting something up soon to resolve the matter. That appeared to mean GWS's review, which clearly was not true because GWS's terms of reference did not cover Richard Colemans complaints. The Charity Commission had said to Richard Coleman that if the GMC did not set up the right systems, he should let them know. However, he felt that the issue of the in camera minutes needed to be looked at as the process was not robust. That little extra knocking away of protection had not been necessary. During the debate in Council members had expressed some comfort that the minutes had been taken. In Richard Coleman’s case, production of the minutes would have proved that he was right or wrong.
Richard Coleman had heard people saying words to the effect of "he will have a lot of trouble trying to get out of this one". But that had not come out in open court. It would be very interesting to read the whole transcript of the in camera discussions in the case he was concerned about. He had the feeling right from the second day that the other members on the Panel in which he sat had thought that the defendant doctor was going to have to prove himself innocent. Richard Coleman had once spoken to somebody on a PCC panel in relation to another case. The case destroyed the doctor's life.
The member on the Panel to which Richard Coleman had spoken had recounted similar concerns about the Chairman of the Panel in that case. Richard Coleman had telephoned Rani Atma on the Saturday in his case after he had finished the hearing on the Friday. He wanted to tell her about his concerns. She confirmed similar feelings to his about some of the members on that particular panel.
GWS asked whether it was easy for an erased doctor to get back onto the Register. Richard Coleman thought it was very difficult to reinstate someone. It was rather unsatisfactory and Richard Coleman thought that it should be possible to reinstate a doctor with some limited powers so that they got back into the swing of things and were able to be monitored. If a doctor disputed that he was guilty he was almost never going to get back onto the Register as that was said not to show remorse. Restoration was difficult. There were no real averages as all the cases differed. For example, in sex cases there was a difference between inappropriate touching of patients and inappropriate meeting with patients after they had come off a doctor's list.