Extract from transcript of David Southall's GMC Fitness to Practise Panel
Day 7, November 21 2006 (for full transcript click here)
“Mrs D” Cross-examined by Kieran Coonan QC on behalf of Dr Southall
Q You started the process of making a complaint to the GMC in I think 1997, did you not?
A That is correct.
Q You wrote a letter to the GMC and also again in July 1999?
A I have written various letters to the GMC.
Q As part of the obligation of disclosure which is on your solicitors, we have been able to see those letters. All right?
A Yes
Q As you have already said to the Panel this morning, you made a statutory declaration?
A That is correct.
Q In July 2002?
A That is correct.
Q I am going to ask you, please, to look at a paragraph in that statutory declaration. You will be handed a clean copy and it has been flagged up with a yellow sticker. (Same handed) Just before you open it up, Mrs D, you will see that on the first main page it sets out your full name and your address.
“I solemnly and sincerely declare that in December 1997 and on 15 July 1999 I made a complaint to the GMC, which amongst other matters concerned Professor Southall, in the form of a letter of complaint the details of which are as follows…”,
and then you set out the details of your complaint?
A That is correct.
Q I want to take you, please, to paragraph 97, which is the page with the yellow sticker on.
MR TYSON: Out of fairness to this witness she could read herself into this, perhaps starting at paragraph 94.
MR COONAN: Yes, of course. Yes, just pick it up at paragraph 94 please. You can read into that.
A (After a pause) Yes.
Q Have you read paragraph 97?
A I have.
Q Can you just please read out for the Panel paragraph 97? Take it slowly.
A I am not allowed to use the names, am I?
Q For these purposes I do not think there is an objection to using the first name.
A “Chris and I saw Professor Southall on the ward round on the morning of the 15th January 1995. Professor Southall was very abrupt and said that there was no such thing as ‘delayed allergic reactions.’ He said he wanted [Child H] to see an Allergist, namely a Professor Warner. He said everything was normal. [Child H] was not given a monitor and we were sent home thinking that everything was safe.”
Q That is all you say about the incident? Just pause for a minute.
A Yes, that is all I said at that time.
Q You are eager to say, but just pause for a minute. In fairness to you, there was an error in the date. That should be a reference to 15 December ---
A 1994.
Q -- as opposed to January 1995?
A That is correct.
Q Mistakes can be made about dates; I fully understand that. The paragraph you have read out is really all that you said in this document about the incident that the Panel is concerned with. Is that correct?
A At that time.
Q At that time, and the date again for us, please, at the end of the document?
A 2004.
Q You will see on the last page ---
A 2002, sorry. 4 July 2003.
Q 4 July 2002?
A That is correct.
Q It finishes, if you look at paragraph 223:
“I make this solemn declaration consciously believing the same to be true and by virtue of the provisions of the Statutory Declarations Act 1835”,
and it sets out your signature. The account you gave there in 2002 was even then eight years after this incident, was it not?
A It was.
Q Approximately. You were no doubt assiduous to put into this document everything that you felt relevant to making a complaint against this doctor stick, were you not?
A No, because as you can see, it was just a very brief account of that account with Professor Southall because my main concern was not how Professor Southall spoke to me, my main concern was the harm that he had done to my son, so I concentrated the complaint more on that rather than this aspect.
Q Mrs D, I fully understand that you had complaints against Dr Southall and they are set out in this document. I do not dispute that.
A Yes.
Q You brought legal proceedings, not in his name, let it be said, but against the Trust and various other agencies, have you not?
A Yes.
Q Not against him personally, but in relation to this situation in 2002, setting out in detail, I suggest, the nature of your complaints against him, all that you said is in relation to paragraph 97?
A Yes.
Q It may be self-evident but let us go through it. There is no reference in that paragraph to Dr Southall being angry in the way in which he dealt with you and possibly your partner, is there?
A Because I did not go into detail of that account in this statement.
Q No reference to the tone of voice he was using?
A Because I did not go into a complete account because I felt that the other concerns, especially to do with the harm to my son, was far more relevant than what was actually said to me.
Q No reference at all to you feeling sick as a result of his conduct?
A As I again say, it was not how I was treated at that time, it was my son.
Q No reference to you being frightened by what he said to ask questions?
A I reiterate that I did not go into detail because I felt that the other concerns were far more serious because they were due to causing harm to my son rather than how I was treated by Professor Southall.
Q And no reference to Dr Southall being dismissive, waving, turning round?
A No, because I did not go into detail.
Q You see, you have started the process of bringing complaints against this doctor, and if, in 2002, these matters that you described, if I may say so, graphically to the Panel yesterday, had made a lasting impression on you in 2002, they would have been no reason for you not to put it in this document, would there?
A As I say, my main concerns were to the harm to my son caused by Professor Southall, not me. It was only at a later date when I was aware that this was a serious concern according to the general medical practice in how patients are treated that I then went into more detail with this account, when I was asked to.
Q You see, so that we have it absolutely clear, 2002 in the statutory declaration was indeed the first time ever you had complained about what I am going to call a “corridor incident”, is it not?
A I am not too sure. I cannot recollect when I did first talk about the corridor incident, because, as I said, my main concern was my son and not me.
Q Whatever may have been your motivation, it may have other consequences, but so that there is no doubt about it, I am putting to you a positive suggestion that this was the first time you had made a complaint to anybody about what I am calling the “corridor incident”, eight years later?
A It may have been, yes.
Q It follows, does it not, that at the time you made no complaint to the nursing staff?
A About how Professor Southall spoke ---?
Q Yes.
A No, because my main concern was my son.
Q I just want to go through this, you see. The Panel can make an assessment. You did not make any complaint to the hospital about his conduct?
A No, because I felt that that was irrelevant considering all the other concerns at the time.
Q That may be, but if what you say is right as being an accurate assessment of what happened on that corridor in 1994, whatever may have been your other concerns – and I do not dispute them – you are going to complain about this doctor’s conduct if what you say is right as to the extent of it.
A This was just a very brief account of the concerns.
Q You did not complain to the hospital did you, that is the point, at any stage prior to 2002?
A Not about how Professor Southall spoke to me, no.
Q You see, not only was there no reference to the corridor complaint in your letters to the GMC which were referred to on the first page of the statutory declaration, not only no reference there, but a complaint was made by you to the Trust in about 1999/2000, was there not?
A I cannot remember all the dates because this has been such a complex history over a number of years.
Q Do you remember making a complaint to the Trust?
A I do remember making a complaint, yes.
Q I am suggesting to you that it was round about 1999/2000?
A Right.
Q So two years or may be three years – the precise time does not really matter – before this statutory declaration?
A I would believe that I made a complaint to the Trust prior to the GMC or round about the same time as the GMC.
Q But prior to the statutory declaration?
A That is correct.
Q Then we agree about that, and I am going to make this suggestion to you so that it is out in the open, that you made no complaint to the Trust in 1999/2000 about Dr Southall’s conduct in the corridor?
A I did not, because my main concern was to keep my son safe and my main concern was the harm that Professor Southall was causing to my son. They were my main concerns.
Q I cannot put a precise date to you because I am not privy to correspondence you may have had with third parties, but round about 2000-ish you enlisted the support of Penny Mellor, did you not?
A I did not enlist the support, and it was actually 1999. I was given her name by somebody as just somebody to talk to because she was aware of other mothers that had been wrongly accused. I did not need her support because I had already made my complaint to the GMC.
Q This is the important point for my purposes. If I could put it this way, Penny Mellor was on board before you made the statutory declaration, was she not?
A She was, but I did not talk to her about my declarations or my statements, she was just purely somebody that I could talk to that was aware of what was happening at the Trust and with other parents. At no time did Mrs Mellor have anything to do with any of my statements.
Q I am going to suggest to you that your account that you have given to the Panel yesterday is exaggerated and it is exaggerated, in part at least, by the passage of time. That is the way I am putting it to you?
A I do not believe that it was an exaggeration.
THE CHAIRMAN: Mr Coonan, I would be looking to have a break shortly.
MR COONAN: Madam, I am almost finished.
(To the witness) One of the comments that you made about Dr Southall at that time was this. Can you just look at paragraph 16 please of the witness statement?
A This? (Indicated)
Q Yes. When you wrote this statement in 2004 – and I am going to quote from paragraph 16 – you said:
“Throughout the latter part of the discussion I felt that Professor Southall was venting his hate towards me.”
A I felt that the way he spoke to me that he did hate me. I had no idea why he was talking to me in such a way, other than when you hate somebody, when you have antagonistic feelings towards them. That is the impression that he gave towards me.
Q You had met him briefly on one previous occasion and you described his conduct as very professional?
A That is exactly how it was at that time.
Q You saw him in the corridor and you felt at the time, you tell Field Fisher Waterhouse in 2004, that even then, in December 1994, that he was, to use your expression, “venting his hate”?
A His attitude towards me in the corridor was very different to the first time that we saw Professor Southall.
Q Again, there is no reference at all to this doctor venting his hate against you in your statutory declaration, is there?
A No, because I elaborated because I was asked to make a statement on that incident, so I went into more detail.
MR COONAN: Thank you very much.