Extract from transcript of David Southall's GMC Fitness to Practise Panel
Day 9, November 23 2006 (for full transcript click here)
Submission by Kieran Coonan, for Dr Southall
The further matter for your consideration, and I simply raise it as a possibility, there is a risk of contamination. Mrs M had signed up, if I can use that expression, Mrs Mellor as her advocate by 10 January 2000, and we know that, it is in Mrs M’s own writing at D1. You also know from Mrs D’s evidence that Mrs Mellor was, as it were, on board I think was the expression I used when I cross-examined her before she made her statement to the GMC in November 2004. That is a fact and it is a factor for you to take into account when considering whether it may be safe, whether it may be tenuous within the principles set out in Galbraith and Shippey.
Response by Richard Tyson, on behalf of complainants
As far as the “polluted by Mrs Mellor” argument, there is absolutely nothing in that, you may think. There is no evidence that these two women have ever met or communicated in any way. My learned friend sort of touched on that in a way trying to muddy the waters, but you have to deal with this case on the evidence, and is there evidence (a) that either of these women in question got in any serious contact with each other, or, more seriously, is there any evidence that the witnesses in question ever talked to each other about these matters at all? Forget all that.
Reply by Mr Coonan, on behalf of Dr Southall
Madam, I think I can keep my reply short. There is one matter of fact which I need to correct my learned friend on, where he asserted not a moment or two ago that there was no evidence that Mrs Mellor and Mrs D had ever met. Could I direct you, please, to Day 7/21 and you will see the evidence to the contrary. You should read the whole of those exchanges because, of course, all I am dealing with is the fact of contact. What you make of that is entirely a matter for you, but it is a matter which I simply seek to correct my learned friend on.