Rapid Responses to:
|
|
Rapid Responses: Rapid Responses published:
-
![[Read Rapid Response]](/icons/misc/sectionDOWN.gif)
Those giving evidence should not be anonymous
- John Hemming MP (10 November 2006)
-
Jonathan Gornall is way out of date!
- sarah m harman (10 November 2006)
-
Secret justice undermines the interests of children
- Dr. Derek F Pheby, Mrs. Anita D. Pheby (16 November 2006)
-
Nothing but the truth?
- Jonathan Gornall (16 November 2006)
-
What is Gornall's argument?
- John Stone (16 November 2006)
-
Author's reply
- Jonathan Gornall (17 November 2006)
-
Response to Jonathan Gornall's response
- John A M Hemming MP (17 November 2006)
-
Re: Author's reply
- John Stone (21 November 2006)
-
The simple sword of truth
- Mark Struthers (21 November 2006)
-
The ball is in Hemming's court
- Jonathan Gornall (23 November 2006)
-
Just who does deserve anonymity?
- John P Heptonstall (23 November 2006)
|
|
|||
|
John Hemming MP, Member of Parliament SW1 0AA
Send response to journal:
|
I have seen a number of family law cases based upon medical opinion where the medical opinion was basically wrong. Allowing any professional to make anonymous allegations and not to be held to account for their claims is wrong. It is crucial that the changes in the rules for Public Family Law require that people tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth and are held to account when they do otherwise. Any professional should have to be responsible for their actions particularly when they damage others (parents and children). If the changes in the rules make professionals more careful to ensure that what they allege is true that will be a step forwards. Competing interests: Chairman "Justice for Families" campaign. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
sarah m harman, solicitor 10 Station oad west Canterbury kent CT2 8BP
Send response to journal:
|
To BMJ Dear Sir Jonathan Gornall is embarrassingly out of date in his detailed analysis of the B case (which was dealt with by the family courts nearly 3 years ago), and its relevance to proposed changes in the law to make the English family court system more transparent. Since then, notwithstanding the ever increasingly exaggerated claims from some quarters that opening the family courts would harm children and deter court experts, the courts themselves are acknowledging the need for English family courts to do their business in the more transparent way that courts in Canada, Australia and of course Scotland have done without apparent difficulty for years. Several High Court judgments have recorded judicial support for more openness to increase public confidence and Gornall fails to mention that the President and many of his senior judges are in favour of change in this direction. Indeed, in a landmark case which was decided on 3 November Munby J agreed that an ongoing case where parents dispute expert evidence that they injured their child should be open to the media. The local authority concerned issued a ‘position statement’ to the press and the reporting in the Times and Guardian, and indeed in the Mail on Sunday set out both sides’ cases, as did the broad casting media. A BBC ‘Real Story’ programme on the case allowed a senior official from the local authority ample time to put their case. No vilification of any experts involved was reported. It is likely that more judges will follow Munby J’s example and more public interest cases will be opened to the media pending any change in the law. Will the skies fall in? I doubt it, but your readers can judge for themselves. Hopefully they will understand that in complex child care cases where expert evidence may be tenuous and the stakes for children are very high, public debate can stimulate awareness of the problems faced by all professionals involved in child protection. It’s difficult getting the balance right, but doing it in secret doesn’t help. Yours faithfully Sarah Harman Competing interests: I am the subject of the article |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Dr. Derek F Pheby, Epidemiologist Plaishetts House, Hadspen, Castle Cary, Somerset, BA7 7LR, Mrs. Anita D. Pheby
Send response to journal:
|
We are very concerned about the double standard adopted by Jonathan Gornall in arguing that the anonymity of expert medical witnesses in family court proceedings should be maintained. While anxious to conceal the identities of medical witnesses, he appears to have overlooked the principle enshrined in law of the paramountcy of the interests of children. He writes, for example, that “Criminal and family court lawyers alike worked feverishly to hitch their clients’ cases to the Cannings bandwagon.” The BMJ, to its discredit, has headlined this extract, and should apologise for this. The facts are that Angela Cannings and her family suffered a serious injustice. She was wrongfully convicted of a crime that never took place, was imprisoned as a result, suffered greatly in prison where she was the victim of serious attacks, and has now been acquitted on appeal. Is Gornall seriously suggesting that Mrs. Cannings somehow contrived all this suffering, by both herself and her family, in order to further some political agenda by setting a bandwagon rolling? This is carrying victim blaming to new heights of absurdity and insensitivity. The Cannings family never sought to be public people, and were only forced into this position when their personal tragedy was compounded by the imposition upon them by the British state and the English legal system of a legal process which was clearly ill-founded from the outset and which should never have been brought. Many such families have children, the paramountcy of whose interests is not served by the continuing and inappropriate media attention, of which Gornall’s article is the latest example, to which they are constantly subjected. Children bereaved by the deaths of siblings suffer grief and fear, without this being made much worse by the loss through imprisonment of a parent. It has been a principle of English law since the twelfth century that justice should not only be done but be seen to be done. This is necessary, because judicial errors do occur. When this happens, it must be possible to challenge them. No such challenge is possible when key witnesses are able to hide behind the cloak of anonymity. This was understood nine hundred years ago, but in the twenty-first century we seem to have forgotten this, despite the terrible examples of secret justice meted out by totalitarian regimes in the last hundred years. Expert witnesses perform a public function, and should therefore be capable, in the interests of justice, of being called to account when their testimony is incorrect, dubious or questionable. At the same time, private people should be able to live their lives and bring up their families in peace and privacy, free from this sort of constant molestation by professionals, by sections of the media or by agencies of the state. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Jonathan Gornall, Freelance journalist London
Send response to journal:
|
Despite her enthusiasm for openness Sarah Harman still appears unwilling to disclose the names of the journalists she has recruited to her campaigning organisation FACTO (Families Action for Court Transparency and Openness). Will she now do so? Perhaps readers might be better equipped to evaluate the many newspaper articles purporting to expose alleged wrongdoings of the family court if the allegiances and agendas of the journalists behind them were a little more transparent.
John Hemming is concerned that professionals involved with the family courts should “tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth” and that they should be “held to account when they do otherwise”. I don’t think anybody would disagree with that. But “the whole truth” is surely a standard it is not unreasonable to expect from every professional, including Members of Parliament and particularly in relation to public statements that might contribute to an unwarranted loss of public confidence in child-protection professionals. In the spirit of Mr Hemming’s quest for “the whole truth”, mirrored in his recent series of five Early Day Motions exploring key issues in child protection [1], perhaps he would like to take advantage of these columns to correct his apparently misleading (and defamatory) EDM 2767, tabled in the House of Commons on October 17 this year? EDM 2767 was moved in the following terms1: "That this House notes that according to the report written by Professor David Hull for North Staffordshire Trust about the work of Professor David Southall in the report written for the University Hospital of North Staffordshire by Professor McLeish [sic] and Dr Durbin, Professor McLeish [sic] said that Professor Southall `pursued multiple clinical research studies that were poorly designed and therefore were unlikely to produce new knowledge of worth. More worryingly he appears to have had insufficient regard for the ethical standards that should surround all clinical studies in babies'; believes that such comments are important comments that require proper consideration; is surprised that the University Hospital of North Staffordshire is unable to find a copy of this report; calls for the hospital to find a copy of this report and publish its contents; and further calls for an independent judicial or Parliamentary inquiry into the research and clinical activities of Professor David Southall, the failure of the regulatory system to prevent unethical experiments on babies managed by Professor Southall and the misuse of child protection and judicial procedures both to prevent parents from raising complaints about his research and procure children for his research." Perhaps Mr Hemming would care to acknowledge that the reality is that Hull, who reported in December 2000, quoted McNeish and Durbin (December 1999) in order to demonstrate that, in his view, McNeish and Durbin got it wrong about Southall. Hull says that McNeish and Durbin based their views on Southall's work solely on … "documents provided by the Trust in relation to these two pieces of research. They did not seek further information nor did they discuss the research with Professor Southall ... Professor McNeish concluded from the evidence he had seen, that Professor Southall ‘pursued multiple clinical research studies that were poorly designed and therefore were unlikely to produce new knowledge of worth. More worryingly he appears to have had insufficient regard for the ethical standards that should surround all clinical studies in babies’.” Mr Hemming’s EDM failed to include Hull’s conclusion, that “It is unfortunate that these views were based on what was in the initial folders. Apparently no further information was sought. Neither expert had recent experience of caring for infants in respiratory failure due to bronchiolitis or the measurement of lung function in infants … Based our own review of the factual material now available, we do not share Professor McNeish’s overall assessment of the worth or the ethics of these two pieces of research." As for the extraordinary reference in the EDM to "the failure of the regulatory system to prevent unethical experiments on babies managed by Professor Southall and the misuse of child protection and judicial procedures both to prevent parents from raising complaints about his research and procure children for his research", Mr Hemming does not state his grounds for these serious charges. Hull’s report does not furnish any. Nor, according to Hull, does McNeish and Durbin’s. Perhaps, on reflection, the Liberal Democrat member for Birmingham Yardley might consider he owes the medical profession an explanation - and David Southall an apology. 1 http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi Competing interests: Author of article |
|||
|
|
|||
|
John Stone, none London N22
Send response to journal:
|
I have read this piece three times, and I have failed to pinpoint any argument in favour of expert anonymity and court secrecy. I see good arguments against them: the normal things that we over hundreds of year have come to expect in legal proceedings like transparency and accountability: the possibility that people will be more careful about what they say if it is subject to scrutiny. It might help us to share his outrage if Gornall could explain why we should not expect these things. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Jonathan Gornall, Freelance journalist London E1 7LQ
Send response to journal:
|
Small wonder that John Stone, despite reading my piece three times, has failed to "pinpoint any argument in favour of expert anonymity and court secrecy" in my article. There isn't one. That was not what the article was about, as I suspect he well knows. Perhaps a fourth reading might help. Derek Pheby's understanding might also benefit from a re-examination of the text. He asks: “Is Gornall seriously suggesting that Mrs. Cannings somehow contrived all this suffering, by both herself and her family, in order to further some political agenda by setting a bandwagon rolling?” No, of course I am not, as anyone who has read the article even carelessly would know. In contriving to suggest otherwise it is Dr Pheby, not I, who is making a spirited bid for the high ground of absurdity. Competing interests: Author of article |
|||
|
|
|||
|
John A M Hemming MP, Member of Parliament SW1 0AA
Send response to journal:
|
I challenge Jonathan Gornall to look at the evidence I have submitted to the GMC and then conclude whether or not I need to apologise. He is welcome to see the evidence at the House of Commons. Competing interests: Chairman - Justice for Families |
|||
|
|
|||
|
John Stone, none London N22
Send response to journal:
|
Jonathan Gornall writes: "Small wonder that John Stone, despite reading my piece three times, has failed to "pinpoint any argument in favour of expert anonymity and court secrecy" in my article. There isn't one. That was not what the article was about, as I suspect he well knows." Well, if so, it amounts to a defence of secrecy by ad hominem attack - beginning with the way Sarah Harman dresses. And challenged by me Gornall fails once again to produce an argument. There is surely no argument: if the evidence cannot bear scrutiny then it should not be given. At least for once the Government seem to be on the side of transparency and accountability. Presumably, Gornall is lobbying for the status quo, but cannot do any better. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Mark Struthers, GP and prison medical officer Bedfordshire mark.struthers@which.net
Send response to journal:
|
“History repeats itself; that’s one of the things that’s wrong with history.” Clarence Darrow Life is so unfair to doctors: and so Jonathan Gornall gamely fights to shield the distinguished medical expert from the lunatic incompetence of politicians, journalists, childish parents, the GMC – and all other such unfairness. Jonathan Gornall may recall the high ground of absurdity reached by Jonathan Aitken, another spirited and distinguished politician. He pledged to fight against falsehood and those who peddled it by cutting out “the cancer of bent and twisted journalism in our country with the simple sword of truth and the trusty shield of British fair play.” [1] Jonathan Aitken played a dissonant tune but Jonathan Gornall - and the distinguished professor - may not remember how that rhyme went. “History doesn’t repeat itself, but it rhymes.” Mark Twain [1] From the notorious speech by Jonathan Aitken to a press conference at Conservative Party offices on April 10 1995. I believe he had an ‘issue’ with the truthfulness of ‘The Guardian’. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Jonathan Gornall, Freelance journalist London E1 7LQ
Send response to journal:
|
As Mr Hemming is well aware (personal communication), I have already agreed to look at his "evidence". The real issue is this: either the Liberal Democrat member for Birmingham Yardley is prepared to step out from behind the protection of parliamentary privilege and repeat the extraordinary allegations he has made about David Southall (see EDM 2767 above), or he is not. Meanwhile, despite an ongoing GMC Fitness to Practise hearing involving Dr Southall, Mr Hemming continues to attack him from behind the shield of parliamentary privilege. Many readers of the BMJ may be shocked to learn that during a speech in the House of Commons on Thursday, the MP compared Dr Southall to Josef Mengele, the German doctor who conducted inhuman experiments in the Nazi death camps [1]. Mr Hemming intends to see that his sensational remarks are more widely distributed. For the past year he has been a regular contributor to the website MAMA (Mothers Against Munchausen Accusations) [2], familiar to many child-protection professionals who have found themselves featured in its exchanges [3]. Mr Hemming has made more than 90 contributions to the site since November last year and in a post on Friday he told his fellow contributors: "I am intending to get the speech uploaded to youtube. My research assistant is getting it on DVD at the moment." [4] Such a "publication" of the speech would be protected (arguably) by parliamentary privilege, so I say again: will Mr Hemming demonstrate the courage of his convictions and repeat his accusations without the benefit of such immunity? 1 www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmhansrd/cm061116/ debtext/61116-0013.htm#06111632000928 2 www.msbp.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=1 3 Marcovitch, H. Diagnose and be damned. BMJ. 1999;319:1376. 4 www.msbp.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1895 Competing interests: Author of article |
|||
|
|
|||
|
John P Heptonstall, Director of the Morley Acupuncture Clinic Leeds LS27 8EG
Send response to journal:
|
Sir/Madam Nowhere in the author's article can I find any argument, reasoned or not, for paediatrician anonymity. Surely it is the children and families who are 'under trial' who, in the best interests of justice, require consideration of anonymity. The effects of false accusations and misleading evidence on potential victims of misrepresentation are far-reaching (witness the Canning case and terrible events and injustices that befell that family). It is not witnesses who require anonymity, expert or otherwise. Regards John H. Competing interests: None declared |
|||