GMC clears child psychiatrist accused of alleged misconduct as expert witness
BMJ 2009; 339 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b4999 (Published 23 November 2009) Cite this as: BMJ 2009;339:b4999
All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
Dear Editor,
Once again, Professionals Against Child Abuse (PACA) finds it
necessary to express grave concern at the reported standards of
investigation and prosecution at the General Medical Council (GMC).
We note the report by Clare Dyer to the effect that the GMC recently
presented expert evidence to one of its Fitness to Practise Panels which
was based on incomplete documentation. [1]. This was in spite of the reported
fact that the GMC’s expert had drawn its attention to “an absence of
documentation.”
We also saw the previous report, published during the hearing. [2]
This included the statement:
“…the GMC’s proceedings, which relate to a case in 2002, are a
warning to those who regularly give evidence in children’s cases that they
should adhere strictly to Home Office and Department of Health guidance on
interviewing child witnesses.”
Discussions with medical and legal colleagues reveal that this
guidance is not widely known. When asked for it by one of our members,
with reference to the BMJ report, the Department of Health referred to
three documents, none of which appears to be the guidance in question;
indeed two of them were published after the incident in question. The Home
Office did not supply the guidance and referred the query to the Ministry
of Justice, which has also not supplied the guidance. If these government
departments cannot supply their own guidance, why does the GMC expect
doctors to follow it?
We consider that all doctors whose livelihood depends on GMC
registration deserve better than this from their professional body. In
particular, this shabby investigation and prosecution by the GMC is likely
further to damage confidence in the GMC among doctors who undertake child
protection work.
[1] C. Dyer, ‘GMC clears child psychiatrist accused of alleged
misconduct as expert witness’ BMJ 2009;339:b4999 23 November 2009
[2] C. Dyer, ‘Psychiatrist failed to follow guidance on interviewing child
witnesses, GMC hears’ BMJ 2009 339: b4669 11 November 2009
Competing interests:
We are members of PACA, Professionals against Child Abuse
Competing interests: No competing interests
Seek and ye shall find on your own web site!
Contrary to what Dr Bridson says, there is an abundance of available
of guidance regarding the duties of an expert witness in child protection
cases, both civil and criminal. I found it in less than ten seconds on a
Google search here
http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/docs/protocol-appendix-c.pdf
Indeed, Lady Butler Sloss, the previous president of the Family
Courts, wrote it all up in the Journal of The Royal Society of Medicine in
2002, with references as to where to go to read further guidance [1]
Lady Butler Sloss quotes Lord Woolf's reforms published in 1996,
predating the current case by some 6 years, in this manner
"Some specific duties of experts
Lord Woolf's report highlighted specific duties of expert witnesses.
First and most important is the requirement to be impartial: experts must
not be seen or see themselves as additional advocates, there to promote
the case of the instructing party. Their task is to assist the court to
deal with cases justly." Seems fairly clear to me as a lay person.
Dr Bridson and PACA openly campaign for Dr David Southall, taking an
express interest in the GMC hearings against him, they only had to read
the GMC sanctions against Dr Southall in Clark, to see what was said and
where to get the guidance. I will, however, repeat it here:
"The Committee have been directed to the guidance entitled ‘Expert
Witnesses in Children Act Cases’ produced by Mr Justice Wall, which you
have acknowledged as good guidance. However, it appears that you did not
follow this guidance in the circumstances of this case....... " [2]
I am astonished and more than a little concerned that PACA claim not to know where to go for the guidance when they have posted transcripts of Southall's hearings on their web site which contain references to Lord Justice Wall's guidance for expert witnesses. [3]
Dr Bridson states "We consider that all doctors whose livelihood
depends on GMC registration deserve better than this from their
professional body."
Am I confused in thinking that paediatricians professional body is
the RCPCH and that the GMC is there as their regulator? Or have I
misintepreted the GMC motto, which is Protecting Patients Guiding Doctors?
[1]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1279987/
[2]http://webcache.gmc-uk.org/minutesfiles/2044.HTML
[3]
http://www.paca.org.uk/pdf_files/southall_hearing_fitness.pdf
Competing interests:
I do not approve of PACA as an organisation and openly challenge their statements and motives
Competing interests: No competing interests