Extract from transcript of David Southall's GMC Fitness to Practise Panel
Day 6, November 20 2006 (for full transcript click here)
“Mrs H” Cross-examined by Kieran Coonan QC on behalf of Dr Southall
Q Can I just, again leaving the phone call to one side, this phone call sixteen years ago, and move about nine years later. Did you instruct somebody called Penny Mellor to be your advocate?
A For the Griffith inquiry, do you mean, or---
Q Well, at any time.
A I heard of Penny Mellor. I thought she was part of the Griffith inquiry, so yes, I did.
Q That was the way to answer it, either a “Yes” or a “No”. So the Griffiths inquiry, since you have raised it, was an inquiry in effect set up by the Trust to investigate certain aspects of Dr Southall’s clinical management, and we will hear about this later.
A We were not part of that inquiry, but yes.
Q But you instructed her, in about, I suggest – at the latest – 1999.
A I think it was around 1999, yes, but “instruct” is the wrong word. We were in Wales. She was in North Staffs. She was giving evidence. I did not know who Penny Mellor was at that time. She was giving evidence. In fact I thought she was part of the Griffith inquiry, so I gave her stuff, yes.
Q Did you give her documents?
A I think I gave her some to pass on to the Griffith Inquiry.
Q Yes, you did.
A Right. But we were not part of that inquiry, were we?
Q Two wholly separate matters. They concern documentation. During the course of your evidence this morning you were being asked about a document in C2, which is letter (g). Could you turn that up, please? This morning you said to the Panel that you had not seen this document before. I just want to explore that with you and I suggest that you are wrong about that. You must have seen it before because it is part of the main record.
A What main records?
Q The documents which were supplied to you, a long time ago, consisted at least of documents of which this was one.
A Sorry, documents supplied from where?
Q At any stage before today you had seen this before, you must have.
A I may have done but I cannot recall it.
Q I shall comment on this later and I give you an opportunity of answering. You now say you may have done but you cannot recall it. This morning you were positive you had never seen it.
A If you are saying I have, then maybe you are right, but I do not remember.
Q Finally, again a matter of documentation. Before I ask you to look at this document can I ask you a couple of preliminary questions to set the scene? During the 1990s, and in particular round about 1994, you were trying to get hold of the Great Ormond Street notes, were you not?
A The solicitor did, yes.
Q The solicitor acting on your behalf.
A Yes.
Q Solicitors at that time acting for Great Ormond Street were who?
A Field Fisher Waterhouse.
Q The same solicitors you have now.
A Yes. Sorry, you said acting for Great Ormond Street.
Q Yes. Do you remember – if you cannot I will jog your memory by putting a document in front of you – at that stage understanding that the Great Ormond Street Hospital records were in existence?
A No. They were missing up to a certain point which was 1990. After that they did have them.
Q After when?
A After the period of 1990. When my son went into hospital in February 1990 for the ventilator assessment, they went missing around that time or just after. They had the notes that followed on from that period of time so they had 1991 records.
Q Have you seen those?
A A couple of pages.
Q That is all?
A That is all.
Q I am going to ask you to look at this letter, please. Can it be distributed? (Same handed)
A I say a couple of pages. I cannot remember. I certainly have not seen any records prior to 1990.
THE CHAIRMAN: Would this be D2?
MR COONAN: Yes, madam. Thank you. Mrs H, you see it is a letter addressed to Mid-Glamorgan County Council in relation to you as the subject of it. I am looking at the middle paragraph, “From speaking to some of the other solicitors involved in this case”.
Pausing there, was that a reference to potential litigation involving a number of parties being brought by you?
A A number of parties?
Q A number of potential defendants to legal action being brought by you?
A It was Great Ormond Street Dr Dinwiddie, I think, and Professor Southall from the Brompton. The solicitors were looking for those records yes.
Q So from your standpoint it was with the possibility of bringing legal action against Great Ormond Street and Dr Dinwiddie, and the Brompton and Professor Southall.
A It was a fishing expedition, yes. But yes, if you like. We instructed solicitors.
Q Whatever it was, their names were going to appear as defendants on a writ, to put it bluntly.
A Yes.
Q The middle paragraph says, “From speaking to some of the other solicitors involved in this case, it is our intention to grant voluntary disclosure of Great Ormond Street Hospital records but to exclude documents which have been sent to the Hospital purely for information purposes. We would therefore indicate to Messrs Huttons, solicitors for the H family, that it would be necessary for them to contact either yourselves or the Social Services Department if they wish to obtain copies of such documents as the case conferences”. Again, this is all about Great Ormond Street principally.
A Yes.
Q I want to ask you, as far as you know did you ever get those documents that Field Fisher Waterhouse appeared to have possession of?
A Which documents, sorry?
Q The ones being referred to here.
A If you are talking about records from Great Ormond Street, we have got a letter in our possession which states that Great Ormond Street did not have any records prior to 1990-91. I guess they got some records, as I say, after March 1990, but nothing before then. In terms of social service department letters, we had those anyway. We were given those by social services.
Q I just want to be clear about this. Do you think you have received everything that Field Fisher Waterhouse had, or apparently had, in 1994, or do you not know?
A that Field Fisher Waterhouse had? They are not our solicitors.
Q Acting on behalf of the hospital, do you follow? You see the letter says, Mrs H,
“It is our intention to grant voluntary disclosure of Great Ormond Street hospital records”. Do you see that? They were acting for Great Ormond Street.
A Yes. Field Fisher Waterhouse were going to get the records, but that is not my solicitors so why would I see them?
Q Because they would then be disclosed to Huttons, your solicitors.
A Our solicitors at the time did not have any records prior to 1990. I have it in writing that they did not exist. Whether Field Fisher Waterhouse had them, I do not know.
Q Is the position this, that you do not at the moment know whether such documents as Field Fisher Waterhouse had were fully disclosed to Huttons, your solicitors? You do not know?
A We had to sign consent forms – I mean, I am not in control of that, am I? That is between solicitors. If Field Fisher Waterhouse withheld from Huttons, I do not know. All
I know is that we had a letter which was sent to Huttons, our solicitors, saying – I think that is right. Field Fisher Waterhouse wrote to them saying there were no documents to be found prior to 1990 in relation to Great Ormond Street.
MR COONAN: Thank you, Mrs H.
Re-examined by MR TYSON
MR TYSON: Presumably you could give that letter to your present solicitors once you get home, could you?
A You should have it somewhere, but yes. I certainly gave it to the General Medical Council. I have certainly given it to the General Medical Council to prove that there were no medical records in relation to Great Ormond Street prior to 1990.
Q You were asked, and it was suggested to you that you had agreed to a local paediatrician from the Royal Gwent Hospital becoming involved in your child’s care. Did you ever agree to that?
A Absolutely not. The Royal Gwent did not come into the conversation. If anyone it would have been a local paediatrician somewhere else, but it was not discussed.
Q You were asked about the Griffith Inquiry. Were you involved in that in any way, or were you not involved in any way because of where your child was treated?
A In March I wrote to David Fillingham in 2000 and I actually referred to the Griffith Inquiry and asked him if we were part of it. That was one of the reasons I wrote. We found that we were not part of it because anything that happened to our son in relation to us took place at the Brompton Hospital London so we did not form any part of any inquiry.
Q Did you understand that the Griffith Inquiry related to Professor Southall’s dealings whilst he was at North Staffordshire?
A We did afterwards. When I asked David Fillingham, I was later told we were not part of that inquiry, categorically told we were not part of that inquiry and that they could not look at any of the issues we had raised. As a supplement to the Griffith Inquiry the MSCHN put in a separate report which did include some of our documents, but I have never seen that report. I do not know what it said.
Q Did you understand that Miss Mellor was part of the inquiry team?
A That was my understanding at the time, yes.