GENERAL MEDICAL COUNCIL
FITNESS TO PRACTISE PANEL (PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT)
Tuesday 14 November 2006
44 Hallam Street, London, W1W 6JJ
Chairman: Dr Jacqueline Mitton
Panel Members:
Mrs Leora Lloyd
Mr Alexander McFarlane
Dr Sameer Sarkar
Mr Arnold Simanowitz
Legal Assessor: Mr Robin Hay
CASE OF:
SOUTHALL, David Patrick
(DAY TWO)
MR RICHARD TYSON of counsel, instructed by Messrs Field Fisher Waterhouse, solicitors, appeared on behalf of the Complainants.
MR KIERAN COONAN QC and MR JOHN JOLLIFE of counsel, instructed by
Messrs Hempsons, solicitors, appeared on behalf of Dr Southall, who was present.
(Transcript of the shorthand notes of T. A. Reed & Co.
Tel No: 01992 465900)
I N D E X
Page No
MRS M, Sworn
Examined by MR TYSON 2
Cross-examined by MR COONAN 18
Re-examined by MR TYSON 43
Further cross-examined by MR COONAN 53
Further re-examined by MR TYSON 54
Questioned by THE PANEL 54
Further re-examined by MR TYSON 63
Further cross-examined by MR COONAN 64
ALISON CORFIELD, Affirmed
Examined by MR TYSON 66
Cross-examined by MR COONAN 75
Re-examined by MR TYSON 79
Questioned by THE PANEL 79
Further cross-examined by MR COONAN 82
Further re-examined by MR TYSON 84
(The video link was connected)
MRS M, Called
THE CHAIRMAN: Good morning, everyone. We reconvene the case of Dr Southall. I do not know whether the witness can hear me at the present time. Are we in contact with Australia?
THE WITNESS: Yes, I can.
THE CHAIRMAN: You can hear us. Thank you.
THE WITNESS: I can, yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mrs M. At the moment we cannot see you on the screen but bear with us just a moment. We have a menu up that is obscuring our view of you.
THE WITNESS: Okay.
THE CHAIRMAN: (After a pause) That is it. We can now see you. Mrs M, can you see us?
THE WITNESS: Yes, I can.
THE CHAIRMAN: Very good. I think it is evening where you are – I should say good evening to you – and it is morning here.
THE WITNESS: Okay. Good morning.
THE CHAIRMAN: Before we begin your evidence can I just explain to you who there is in the room here. I am the lay Chairman of the Panel that is hearing the case today who is speaking to you now. There are in fact four other Panellists sitting with me and they are either side of the room here. With me I have a Legal Assessor and a Committee Secretary. Then we also have the Doctor, his legal team, his counsel Mr Coonan, and on the other side, for you and the General Medical Council we have Mr Tyson and the legal team. There is also a shorthand writer here who is making the record of the hearing. The hearing is in public and we are calling you Mrs M, as you know. I think that is probably all I need to mention. There are also some people in the public gallery here.
THE WITNESS: Okay, thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN: We need I think to arrange for an oath to be taken. As well as calling you Mrs M, of course I think you are aware we are going to call your children M1 and M2. You are aware of that?
THE WITNESS: Yes, I am.
MRS M, Sworn
Examined by MR TYSON
Q Do you have access to a piece of paper there, Mrs M?
A I can get one.
Q What I want you to do is can you write down on that bit of paper please your full name and address?
A My Australian address?
Q Yes, please.
A Okay. (The witness wrote her name and address on a piece of paper)
Q Now comes the difficult bit. At the end of the evidence I am going to ask you to fax that note back to us in London, but is there any way that you can hold it up to the screen so that it can be read by anybody?
A (The witness held the piece of paper to the screen) I do not know if you can see it.
MR TYSON: I can see a bit of paper, certainly.
THE CHAIRMAN: Stay there for a moment and someone will come and look. I can assure you that it cannot be seen by the public gallery here.
(Mr Tyson’s instructing solicitor wrote down the
witness’s name and address)
THE CHAIRMAN: It has been confirmed I think that that has been read. The solicitor is just copying down what you have written. Are you able to hang on a few moments longer, Mrs M?
MR TYSON: (After a pause) Thank you, you may go back.
Mrs M, I am going to ask you some questions about an interview that you had with Professor Southall. After I ask you questions, you are going to be asked some questions by Professor Southall’s barrister and then I might be able to ask you some more questions. After that you will be asked some questions or may well be asked some questions by the members of the Panel, and following that you may find that Professor Southall’s barrister or I might ask some more. That is how it is going to go.
A Okay.
Q I see you have a bundle of documents in front of you.
A Yes.
Q Can I ask you please, just to see that we are looking at the same bundle, to go in this bundle to section 1 at tab (gg)?
A I am sorry, (gg)? Okay.
Q I am sorry, members of the Panel I am going to ask you to be looking at section (gg) at page 23, which I am going to be taking this witness to. The witness will have it in a slightly different place. Do not worry about yours, Mrs M, at the moment.
A Okay.
Q I am just asking the Panel to locate that they have got a document at (gg) at page 23. Could you please look at tab (ii) at page 23?
A Okay.
Q Could you just please read the first four words on that document to see if we are all looking at the same document?
A “I am the above named person …”.
Q I want you to be looking at something that says page 23 in tab (ii)?
A Sorry, I have got (ii) but there are no page numbers.
Q If you go through tab (ii) until you come to a letter from a county council, dated
18 May 1998, then following that there should be a document from the social worker Francine Salem. It is towards the back of tab (ii). I am not asking the Panel to look at tab (ii).
A I have got it.
Q Could you just read the first three words of that document?
A “Thank you for your letter …”.
Q Yes, and then the next page says ---?
A Do you want me to read it?
Q Just read the first three words so we can see we are all looking at the same document.
A “Following a request …”.
Q That is fine. Could you keep that page open and I will come back to that in a moment. It might be helpful if you sort out the file so that you can keep it open permanently.
A Okay.
Q I am not going to take you to that directly but we will come to it in a minute. I want to take you back to 1998 and to a time when your youngest child, who we are calling M2, was taken away from you. You recall that period no doubt?
A Yes, I do.
Q We know that your child was taken away and we know that you got a solicitor to assist you with getting the child back. Can you remember the name of that solicitor?
A Yes, her name was Beth Parry.
Q Can you recall when you first became aware of the name “Professor Southall”?
A It was not till quite a few days later on when we had the first case conference.
Q Did his name come up at that case conference?
A Yes, it did.
Q Can you recall in what connection it came up?
A Yes, I do.
Q Perhaps you can tell the Panel?
A I am sorry, do you want me to tell ---?
Q Yes, please.
A Okay. We went to the case conference and it was basically outlined why my son was taken away on the request of Professor Southall. That was the first time his name came up, and what his qualifications were, at the case conference.
Q Can you just pause there. Did you say the child was taken away at the request of Professor Southall?
A Yes.
Q I am sorry, perhaps you can continue. We are at the case conference. You say his name came up, the child had been taken away ---
A Yes, it was.
Q -- at his request, you heard, and just take us through that case conference in connection with Professor Southall please?
A At the case conference what was talked about was the nursing director who had been in touch with Professor Southall about her concerns and then the social services were involved and got an emergency protection order on the advice of Professor Southall to take my son away.
Q Just pause there a moment. You talked about a nursing director. Were you employed at a hospital?
A Yes, I was.
Q Do not mention the name of the hospital, but what was your occupation at that hospital?
A I was an operating department orderly.
Q Could you tell the Panel, please, what an operating department orderly does?
A Yes, it cleans the operating theatres, it stocks the shelves, I get the equipment read for the operations.
Q In such a role did you have access to any drugs?
A No, I do not.
Q Are you taught or do you know how to do injections or the like?
A No.
Q You told us that the director of nursing got in touch with social services, as a result of which ---
MR COONAN: I think the evidence was “got in touch with Dr Southall.”
MR TYSON: I am obliged. Then going back to this case conference at which you were, you have mentioned that Professor Southall’s name came up and that your son had been taken away. Was there any discussion at that case conference that you can recall as to why your youngest son had been taken away?
A Yes, there was.
Q Could you please tell the Panel what you recall of that conversation?
A Yes. There was mention of Munchausen’s syndrome by proxy and it was thought that I was suffering from it and that my son was in danger from me.
Q Was there any discussion of the factors that made that diagnosis be made?
A Yes, there was.
Q Carry on.
A It mentioned all the accidents that my son had had. There was also a mention of the way he was feeling, which I discussed with one of my managers where I work, and that apparently is how it all came about.
Q At that case conference was there any discussion about your elder child who had did?
A Well, there was mention of – there was a similarity in what [M1] was saying he felt like. Sorry, what child number two was saying.
Q Call the child either your eldest child or your youngest child.
A Okay, sorry.
THE CHAIRMAN: Can I just at this point remind any press present that we are anonymising the names in this case and the actual names, even if mentioned, should not be reported. I just make that reminder. Thank you.
MR TYSON: (To the witness) Do you recall at the end of the case conference whether it was decided that you should go anywhere to see any people?
A No, it was not mentioned at the case conference, no.
Q Carry on.
A No, there was not.
Q Subsequently was it arranged that you would have to see any people?
A Yes, it was, and that was later on in the court appearance.
Q Who was it who arranged that you should go and see?
A Professor Southall and Professor Dora Black, and that was it.
Q And did you go and see both Professor Dora Black and Professor Southall?
A Yes, I did.
Q When you went to see Professor Dora Black were you accompanied by any social workers, or anything like that?
A No.
Q You said that you went to see Professor Southall. Can you say why you had to go and see Professor Southall?
A I was told it was going to be for a medical to see if I was actually suffering from Munchhausen’s syndrome by proxy.
Q Did you go there, as far as family members, by yourself or with any other person?
A Yes, I went with a social worker.
Q But did a particular social worker take you up there just to help assist with the transport?
A Yes, they did.
Q And when you got into the room, who was there?
A Professor Southall and another social worker, Francine Salem.
Q Were you expecting Francine Salem to be there?
A No, I was not.
Q Had you been told that she was going to be present?
A No. Nobody told me at all.
Q When you were in the room, did she explain why she was there?
A She never talked to me at all.
Q Did Professor Southall explain to you why she was there?
A No, he did not.
Q Was this interview in Stoke on Trent?
A Yes, it was.
Q And was it in what you understood to be Professor Southall’s own room?
A Yes, it was.
Q And apart from you and Professor Southall and Francine Salem, was there any other person in the room at the time?
A No, just the three of us.
Q And in preparation for that interview, what were your own emotions like at this time?
A Very high. Very high indeed.
Q In what way, and why?
A I mean, I was just getting over…. Coming to terms with the death of my eldest son, and my youngest son was taken away also.
Q If you had known that there was going to be someone else at that meeting, apart from Professor Southall, what would you have done?
A I would have taken by solicitor with me, or somebody else with me. Yes, I would.
Q A note of that meeting has been taken by Francine Salem. What I am going to do, Mrs M, is to take you through that not and see what you agree with and what you disagree with and to try to bring the words alive so we can see how things were said. You understand?
A Yes, I do.
Q And the note that I am going to take you through is the note that we eventually found that starts with the words, “Following a request…”. Do you see that?
A Yes, I do. Got it. Sorry.
Q Looking at the second paragraph it says:
“Pfr. Southall began the discussion by talking with [you] about the suggestion that [your eldest child] had been bullied by both students and a teacher.”
Is that how you recollect the interview beginning?
A Yes. He did talk about my eldest son being bullied, yes.
Q Were there any preliminaries or did he go, as it were, straight into the bullying?
A Straight into the bullying.
Q Ms Salem records your response to those questions as here she says that you confirmed this –
“… suggesting that your eldest son had sorted the children’s bullying out by retaliation and this had stopped it.”
Do you recall saying that?
A Yes, I do.
Q She also says that:
“... the key areas relating to this type of bullying were [your eldest child] being kicked, having his clothes pulled about and books kicked across the ground.”
Is that what you said?
A Yes, because she asked me what type of bullying went on. Sorry, Professor Southall asked me about the type of bullying.
Q It is recorded that you said that you did not feel –
“… that any school would acknowledge that bullying was going on within their school.”
A Yes, that is right.
Q It is recorded here:
“With regard to the kick that [your eldest son] sustained from Lisa … [you] stated that [your eldest child] was complaining of pain two days later, not all the time … So [you] had decided to take [the child] to hospital.”
Was there a discussion about the “Lisa kick”, as it were?
A I cannot remember precisely if I mentioned that but, yes, it was mentioned somewhere in the conversation.
Q The note goes on to discuss bullying by the class teacher. Was there a discussion about that?
A Yes, there was.
Q And it is recorded that you said that there had been problems from the very beginning of your child being in that lady teacher’s class?
A There had been problems, yes, but I cannot remember exactly, but I am sure I mentioned it during the course of the conversation.
Q We are in the third paragraph now, Mrs M. Do you see this?
A Yes, I do.
Q It says in the third line in the third paragraph that the teacher –
“… was alleged to have reduced [your eldest child] to tears and ignored him when he had his hand up (asking for help) for half an hour.”
Is that what you told Professor Southall?
A Yes, that is right. Yes.
Q And that you also gave Professor Southall two witnesses of school friends that had told you about this. Is that right?
A That is correct, yes.
Q Francine Salem has recorded that there was a discussion about you having to apologise to a member of staff about your eldest child’s behaviour. Was there a discussion about that?
A I cannot remember. I am sorry.
Q I am just asking you to look ---
A I remember apologising.
Q To the school?
A Yes I remember apologising to the school.
Q It is recorded here that there was a discussion about your eldest child’s appendix operation. Can you recall there was a discussion about that?
A I cannot remember that conversation, no. Just that there was a discussion about his injuries that he sustained.
Q At the time when your eldest son had to go for an appendix operation, were you living at the family home?
A No, I was not. No.
Q In the next paragraph can you pick up the words, “Mrs M, when question…”. Do you see that?
A Yes, I can. Sorry.
Q It is recorded in that paragraph. Perhaps just read that little paragraph to yourself for a moment.
A Okay. (Pause for reading)
Q Was there a discussion along those lines about the relationship between you and your husband?
A Professor Southall asked me about my relationship with my husband, and I assured him that the children had not seen anything or heard anything. He initiated the conversation about that bit.
Q Just read the next two little paragraphs, please, together. Then I will ask you some questions about those.
A (Pause for reading) Okay.
Q Was there a discussion about your eldest child’s death?
A Yes, there was.
Q And who brought it up?
A Professor Southall.
Q And can you recall in general terms how that conversation went, and what kind of questions he was asking you about it?
A He started by asking me why I thought my eldest son had done it, and he gave me three scenarios as to what he thought, and he got a bit annoyed about the fact that I would not show him how he actually did it.
Q We will come onto that in a moment. We see in this little note that I showed you, was there a discussion about whether the curtains in your eldest child’s room were open or closed?
A Yes, there was.
Q And was there a discussion about the belt that had been used by your eldest child?
A Yes, there was. Yes.
Q Do you recall whether Professor Southall made any comments about that belt?
A Yes, he did.
Q What were the comments that you recall?
A Professor Southall stated that he did not think it was my son’s belt as it was too big, but it was very clever of him.
Q Very clever of him in what way?
A In the way he tied the belt.
Q Were you asked about how the belt had been tied?
A Yes, I was.
Q And did you demonstrate that to Professor Southall?
A Yes, I did. (The witness was distressed)
Q Do you have a glass of water or a hanky there at all, Mrs M?
A Yes. Sorry.
THE CHAIRMAN: Mrs M, we know that this may be distressing for you. If at any time you want to take a break, do let us know.
A Thank you. Okay.
MR TYSON: I do not want to embarrass you any more than I have to, Mrs M, but you have shown some emotion just now. Were you showing any similar kind of emotion when you were being asked these questions by Professor Southall?
A Yes, I was and I was very angry as well.
Q Were you crying?
A Yes, I was.
Q And were you upset?
A Yes, I was.
Q I am sorry to have to go back to the question of the belt. You say that Professor Southall asked you to demonstrate how it was used on the curtain pole?
A Yes, he did.
Q And did you show him?
A I showed him with a pencil and a shoe lace.
Q You told the Panel earlier that at one point Professor Southall had said the words, “Very clever.”
A Yes.
Q Was that in relation to the demonstration about the belt, or had it been another section?
A He said it straight after the demonstration of how he tied the belt
Q And how would you describe the way that he said, or the manner in which Professor Southall said, “Very clever”?
A He said it quite sarcastically actually.
Q And in relation generally to the questions that Professor Southall was asking you, how would you describe his manner of questioning?
A Very aggressive.
Q You said that at one time you had seen another professor, Professor Black. Was the style of questioning the same or different?
A Completely different.
Q And by comparing the two medical experts, who would you describe Professor Southall’s manner of questioning your?
A Unprofessional.
Q And why do you say that the questioning was unprofessional?
A He did not believe a word I was saying, and Professor Southall was asking me questions one after another. At one point he did not let me explain. He just kept questioning me.
Q I need to come back to this note that we were looking at, Mrs M. Can I take you to the bottom paragraph of this first page, where there seems to have a conversation recorded about the ambulance. That was a call by you. Will you just read that to yourself?
A (Pause for reading) Yes, okay.
Q And does that set out broadly your recollection of the discussion you had about the ambulance and the ambulance men?
A Yes, it does.
Q And was it Professor Southall or Ms Salem who is asking you these questions
A Professor Southall.
Q Turn over the page, please. Just read the first three lines of the next page.
A To you?
Q To yourself.
A Okay. (Pause for reading)
Q Was there a discussion about an overdose being taken by your husband?
A Between me and Professor Southall?
Q Yes. Did he ask you about it?
A I am sorry. I cannot recollect that.
Q You see what is written at the top of the second page – those three lines?
A Yes I do.
Q You cannot recollect that?
A I cannot, I am sorry.
Q Just look at the next paragraph, please, about a magazine. Can you just read those words, please.
A (After a pause) Yes, that is fine.
Q Did he ask you about the magazine?
A Yes, he did.
Q And does that show that the nature of the discussion that you had about the magazine?
A Yes. It does, yes.
Q Then, reading the paragraph about the television program, just read those three lines to yourself, please. (Pause for reading) Does that reflect the discussion you had about the television programme?
A That was only a brief conversation when we were discussing the bullying incident, yes
Q Were you asked whether you had said anything on the television programme?
A Yes. Professor Southall asked me, and I told him that I had not said a word. Actually, he got involved in the conversation.
Q It is going to be the next paragraph. Would you just read those words about the schooling incident, please? (Pause for reading) Were you asked about that by Professor Southall?
A Yes, I was.
Q Does that paragraph more or less record what you said?
A Yes, it does.
Q Could you read the next paragraph, please, to yourself. (Pause for reading) Were you asked about the two boys that you had heard about at the inquest?
A Yes, I was.
Q Were you aware before the inquest that these boys had said this to the police?
A I think I was. I cannot recall. I just remember the conversation I had with somebody about one of the boys, yes.
Q Had you spoken to either of the boys yourself?
A Not until after the inquest, no.
Q Did you give to Professor Southall the information about what happened to one of the boys that is recorded in this note?
A Yes, I did.
Q Can you just read the next two lines to yourself, please? (Pause for reading) Was there a discussion about your eldest child’s height and weight and matters like that?
A Yes, there was.
Q Can you take us through it, as best you recall now, at the time?
A Professor Southall mentioned that because my eldest son was quite tall and his weight that the pole should have broken and it did not. He just kept saying that it should have broken due to his height and weight.
Q And what kind of tone was he using when he was saying that?
A Very aggressive and sarcastic.
Q Skip the next four lines and then go to the next two lines, please, which talk about the curtain rail. Did Professor Southall discuss the curtain rail with you?
A Yes, he id.
Q What kind of questions was he asking you about the curtain rail?
A He was asking me what type of curtain rail it was and how it was fixed to the wall.
Q Were there any questions about where the rail was now?
A Yes, he did. I explained what had happened to it afterwards and he did not believe me.
Q What did you explain that had happened to it afterwards?
A My husband had taken it down off the wall and chopped it up and put it in the bin.
Q You say that Professor Southall did not believe you. How did you ascertain that?
A I explained to him that when I found my eldest son I attempted to jump on the rail, grab hold of it and pull it down myself and it did not come down and he said, “I don’t believe that because you are heavier than your son”.
Q All the questions that I have been asking you to date about this interview, Mrs M, relate to your eldest son. Is that your recollection?
A Yes, it is.
Q Please have a glass of water, if you want to. Can you go over the page, please, to the top of the next page? We see that there is mention there about you being absent from work a bit prior to your eldest child’s death. Were you asked about your work record?
A No, not really.
Q It is recorded here that you said words to the effect that you must have been fed up with your job at the time. Can you recollect saying that?
A No, I do not recollect saying that because I liked my job at that time.
Q Were you liking your job at the time of your eldest child’s death?
A I was, yes.
Q There is reference in that paragraph to Child and Family Service appointments. Had there been made available to you opportunities to go to the Child and Family Service with your youngest child?
A Yes, there was. Yes.
Q Who was the doctor who was running that service?
A Dr Solomon.
Q Were those sessions for the benefit of you and your husband or were they for the benefit of your youngest child?
A We were all told that we could all attend but my husband did not attend because of his job commitments but I took my younger son to them.
Q Could you, in this note, go down to the fourth paragraph where syringes are mentioned? Do you see that paragraph?
A Yes.
Q Could you just read that to yourself? (Pause for reading)
Were you asked by Professor Southall about your knowledge of syringes and injections?
A Yes, I was.
Q Could you take the panel through the kind of questions you were asked about these things?
A Professor Southall asked me if I had seen injections being given, if I had access to any medications, any drugs, and I explained that I did not because I was not trained to do that;
I was just trained to clean the operating theatres and I had no contact with patients at all.
Q Did Professor Southall appear to accept what you were saying?
A No, not really. No.
Q How did you judge that?
A I judged it that he thought that I had actually killed my son.
Q Was there a discussion about ways in which your son could have died?
A Yes, there was.
Q I know this might be painful for you, Mrs M, but perhaps in your own words you can take us through that discussion as you recall it.
A After all the questions Professor Southall asked me, he said, “There are only two ways that my son could have possibly died, the first one being through experimenting”. I was not quite sure at that time what he meant. The second one was that he meant to do it and the third one was that he was murdered.
Q How did the conversation go on?
A Sorry?
Q Was there a discussion about any of those three and which was the most likely?
A Yes, there was.
Q Perhaps you can tell the panel how that discussion went?
A Professor Southall just turned to me and said, “I put it to you that you killed your son by injecting him, hanging him up, leaving him there to die and then ringing the ambulance”. (Pause) Can I just have a minute, please?
THE CHAIRMAN: We will take a 10-minute break at this time.
MR TYSON: Mrs M, we are just going to stop for ten minutes and have a break.
(The Panel adjourned for a short time)
MR TYSON: Mrs M, can you hear me?
A Yes, I can.
Q Are you comfortable proceeding or do you want further time?
A I am fine. Thank you.
Q I am sorry but I am going to have to come back to distressing matters. You said that Professor Southall said to you, “I put it to you that you killed your son by injection. You hung him up, leaving him to die and then called an ambulance”. Can you please tell the panel in what kind of tone Professor Southall was saying this?
A As I said before, it was aggressive, uncaring. He just came straight out with it and just said, “This is what I think happened”, and that is when he said that I injected him and hung him up and left him.
Q Was it true?
A No, it was not true.
Q What do you consider to be the cause of your eldest son’s death?
A I believe that he was bullied and that is the truth.
Q Did you give Professor Southall any other people who could help you on the question of bullying?
A I mentioned other parents that had children in the same school.
Q If you look at that note that we were looking at on page 2, you see about two thirds of the way down some names that are there mentioned?
A Yes.
Q Are those the names that you gave Professor Southall?
A Yes.
Q Perhaps you can read the next paragraph to yourself about the gentleman that is mentioned. (Pause for reading) Is the gentleman there mentioned the head teacher of the school where your eldest child was?
A Yes.
Q Did you say words to the effect that we see in that paragraph?
A Correct. I believe that is correct. That is what he said.
Q Can you read the last paragraph to yourself, please? (Pause for reading)
A Yes, that is correct.
Q Was there a discussion about how the belt was tied around your eldest
child’s ---
A Yes, there was.
Q Were you initially reluctant to talk about that?
A I did not want to talk about it and I said that to Professor Southall.
Q How did the conversation go on?
A Professor Southall said to me that if I did not show him how it was tied then I must be guilty.
Q How did you take that accusation?
A I was very angry about it.
Q But did you in fact tell him how it was tied?
A Yes, I did. I did, yes, but he could not understand how I was explaining it to him, so
I showed him.
Q You told us earlier that you used a pencil and screen?
A Yes.
Q Can I ask you, please, to keep a hand in the document we are looking at and go over a few pages. You will see a section marked (bb). It follows. Go forwards and you will see a section called (bb). You will see in this section there is some handwriting. Do you see the handwriting?
A I do, yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: Mr Tyson, for the benefit of the panel, could you point out if this is the same BB? Then it is before rather than after.
MR TYSON: I am sorry. (To the witness) Do you see the handwriting under section (bb)?
A Yes.
Q Can you turn a couple of pages into there at a page which is marked at the bottom 161, which has a diagram of what looks like maybe your house. There is some page numbering at the bottom, Mrs M. It is 161.
A Yes, I have got it.
Q You see there is a diagram. Is that the upstairs of the house that you were living in at the time?
A Yes, it is.
Q Is that your drawing or somebody else’s drawing?
A Somebody else’s drawing.
Q But does it reasonably accurately show the layout of the top floor of your house?
A Yes, it does.
Q On the day that your eldest child died, did you first see it when you were sitting on the toilet that we see marked there with an arrow?
A Yes, that is right.
Q Was the bathroom door and also your eldest child’s door open?
A The bathroom door was not open fully but I could see directly into my son’s bedroom, yes.
Q Is the bed normally placed where it is on the hard lines, as opposed to the dotted lines?
A Yes, that is correct.
Q Is the window the other side of that bed?
A Yes, it is.
Q Is that the window with the curtain pole over it?
A Yes, that is right.
Q Is that the window from where you saw your eldest son?
A Yes, it is.
Q Would you turn over two pages, please, to page 163? Is that your drawing or somebody else’s drawing?
A Somebody else’s drawing.
Q We see a drawing on the far left-hand side which appears to be of the curtain pole. We see there is a drawing there of something being looped over itself with two ends hanging round. Is that how you found the belt on the day in question?
A Yes, it is.
Q Did you on that day in question, Mrs M, put that belt on that pole?
A No, I did not.
Q Could you go back to the document which we have been looking at, please, which is in the section before in your bundle. Do you have that?
A Yes.
Q I was asking you about the bottom paragraph. It is recorded here, about three lines from the bottom that Professor Southall had told you that he felt that this was crucial information which was needed. That is in relation to you talking about how the belt was tied around your eldest child’s neck. Did he use those kind of words?
A Yes, he did.
Q We see in the next line down some wording about wanting to prove your innocence. Were those words which you used or were they words that Professor Southall used?
A Professor Southall said that if I did not show him how it was done, then I must be guilty. So I said I would show him if it proves that I am innocent.
Q Did you go on to show him?
A Yes, I did.
Q I think you told us earlier that that eventually led to the remark of him saying, “Very clever”, or words to that effect. Is that right?
A Yes, that is right.
Q In the course of this interview with Professor Southall, how much conversation do you recall there being about your youngest son?
A There was no conversation about my youngest son at all.
Q How much conversation do you recall there was about your family and family life generally?
A There was quite a bit.
Q Was the main thrust of the interview about your youngest son or about your eldest son?
A My eldest son.
Q The interview eventually came to an end. Can you tell the Panel, please, the range of emotions which were going through you as you walked out of the door?
A I was very upset, I was very angry, I was crying. I felt sick that I had been accused of murdering my own son and that is something I have to live with forever. I am still quite angry about it.
Q You came back from that interview and, following that, did you go and see anybody about the interview?
A Yes. I asked the social worker to take me straight to my solicitors to see Beth Parry, my solicitor.
Q Did you give her an account of what had happened?
A Yes, I did.
Q Did you also see another professional with whom you were involved at the time around this time?
A Yes. I recall seeing Dr Soloman.
Q Did you give her any kind of account or description of what had taken place?
A I recall giving her a brief description of the interview, yes.
Q If it was suggested to you that Professor Southall was polite and courteous throughout, what would you say to that?
A That is not true at all. He was not polite and he certainly was not courteous.
Q If he felt that you were not answering questions fully, what would be his reaction?
A He would just ask me another one, one after another.
Q If you felt unable to answer any particular question, what was his reaction to that?
A He got quite annoyed.
Q Did he make any comments about your reluctance to answer any questions?
A Yes, he did. He said if I did not answer them, I must be hiding something.
Q From your recollection, did he accuse you of murdering your son only once or at any other times throughout the interview?
A He accused me of murdering my son once as he went through the scenario. At the end of the scenario, he said, “I put it to you that you killed your son”, and then he went on to describe how I had done it.
Q Did you gain the impression that you were being believed by Professor Southall?
A No, not at all.
MR TYSON: If you would just wait there, please, you will be asked some questions on behalf of Professor Southall.
Cross-examined by MR COONAN
Q Mrs M, as Mr Tyson has indicated, it is not my intention to cause you any distress by asking you these questions. Do you understand?
A I do, yes.
Q But to assist the Panel, both Mr Tyson and I, doing our respective duties, have to delve into these matters. Do you understand?
A Yes, I do.
Q You completed your evidence a few moments ago by in effect telling us that Professor Southall had accused you of murdering your son, as I say, in effect, on three occasions. Is that right?
A Yes.
Q You are saying to this Panel that he had done so in clear, unmistakeable terms. Is that right?
A Yes, that is right.
Q Those clear and unmistakeable terms were said to you by this doctor in the presence and hearing of this senior social worker. Is that right?
A That is right, yes.
Q She must have been sitting feet away from Professor Southall.
A Yes, she was.
Q Let me set the scene on Professor Southall’s behalf by suggesting to you that he did not at any stage accuse you of murdering your child.
A He did.
Q Let me make it clear on his behalf what I am suggesting is that you came away from that interview with a perception that you had been accused of murder.
A He did accuse me of murder.
Q Do you see the distinction between the two points I am putting to you?
A Yes, I do.
Q Let us start at the beginning. This may involve going over some earlier ground but it may help to put it into context. Before the interview on 27 April, you knew that the local authority, in other words, social services, had obtained an Emergency Protection Order, an EPO. They had obtained that on 29 January.
A I was only aware of it when they knocked on my door that morning with the police officers.
Q I do not dispute that. Obviously it follows that you came to know that social services had obtained the EPO.
A Yes.
Q Did you know what the basis of the grant of the EPO was?
A Eventually I did, yes.
Q Did you come to know what that basis was before the interview with Professor Southall?
A Yes, I did.
Q Did you come to know therefore that the basis of the grant of the EPO by the court was that your youngest son was at risk of significant harm from you?
A Yes.
Q When you came to know about the EPO, in other words, that your youngest child had been taken from you in the circumstances which you have just alluded to, you must have been very angry and very upset about those events, must you not?
A Yes, I was.
Q And very confused?
A I was not confused, no.
Q Perhaps I could put it a different way. You must have been at a loss to understand how this could have come about.
A Yes.
Q That is the EPO. Can I move on to the next stage in the events? Did you become aware that social services, the local authority, were then applying for what is called an interim care order?
A Yes, I was aware of that.
Q That application was arranged to be heard in the County Court, was it not?
A Yes.
Q Did you understand that the reason put forward for the application for the interim care order was that it was to be a holding measure until social services could investigate whether or not they were dealing with a case of Munchausen’s syndrome by proxy?
A Yes, I was aware.
Q Did you also understand that that application for an interim care order was supported by the social services and by what is called the Guardian ad litem, or called then at least the Guardian ad litem? Did you understand that?
A Yes, I understood that.
Q The Guardian ad litem was a Mrs Inwood. Was that right?
A Yes, she was. That is correct, yes.
Q The Guardian ad litem is appointed to look after the interests of the child; in other words, is appointed in this case to look after the interests of your youngest child?
A I understood that, yes.
Q Eventually, the application for an interim care order was heard in the county court and was heard by a judge called Judge Tonking. Is that right? Do you remember that?
A Yes, that is right. Yes, I do.
Q Was the upshot of that care process – and I am summarising this – that the judge agreed that your youngest child should be returned to you. Is that right?
A Yes, that is correct.
Q But that thereafter investigations should be carried out into whether or not Munchausen’s syndrome by proxy was present here or not and that such an investigation would be carried out by or on behalf of social services?
A I am sorry I am not sure I understand. Can you repeat that please?
Q Yes, of course. The judge agreed that, first of all, your youngest son should go home?
A Yes, that is right.
Q Because he had been in an approved foster care since the making of the EPO?
A That is right, yes.
Q But it was recognised by social services and by the Guardian ad litem that there were nonetheless still serious concerns as to whether or not there was a case of Munchausen’s.
A Yes, I understand now. Yes, sorry.
Q That investigation as to whether or not the authorities were dealing with a case of Munchausen's syndrome by proxy would therefore be carried out whilst your youngest son was at home with you?
A That is right, yes.
Q Eventually – and the precise date I am not particularly concerned about – but certainly before 27 April you came to understand that that investigation or assessment would be carried out, at least in part, by Professor Southall and Dr Dora Black.
A Yes, that is right.
Q Were you given to understand that both Dr Black and Dr Southall represented different medical disciplines?
A No, I was not led to believe that. I thought they were both the same.
Q Did you understand – and again, Mrs M, so that I make it clear, this is again before
27 April – that the question which had been raised by the authorities – I can use that expression generally – of Munchausen’s syndrome by proxy involved a suspicion of abuse of your youngest child by you?
A That is correct.
Q Before the interview took place did you understand that investigation or assessment that we have just discussed, which would be carried out, would involve a close look at the circumstances surrounding your eldest son’s death?
A No, I was not aware of that at all.
Q So you did not understand that there would be any focus on your elder son’s death at that stage?
A No.
Q Therefore, would it be fair to say that your expectation in this regard in terms of the investigation and the assessment which was to be carried out would be focused upon whether or not there was any basis for the suspicion that you were abusing your youngest child?
A I was told that it would be a medical to see if I had Munchausen’s syndrome.
Q Can we look at that in two respects? That is all you were told, was it, that it was simply going to be as you just described it – and I am not disputing what you say. As you have described it, you were told that you were going for a medical to see whether or not you were suffering from Munchausen’s. Is that right?
A That is correct. That is right, yes.
Q Of course, a medical could take many forms. You can get this out of the way. Did you anticipate that there would be any physical examination of you?
A I was not sure what it entailed.
Q May I come back to that aspect of it in a moment. Did you think, nonetheless, that there might be questions or discussion by Dr Southall, and for that matter Dr Black, about the possibility of you abusing the child, your youngest child?
A Yes, I was expecting that, yes – my youngest child.
Q That is the first bit of background I want to deal with. Can I now just pause for a minute and just ask you about an event of which I am a little ignorant and I wish you to help me. Before 27April had you at some stage, in say January, February or March time, been to see the police again?
A I went down to the police station with my solicitor at one point, but I cannot remember when.
Q Was that immediately following your eldest son’s death, because we know that you made a witness statement three days later? It is not that occasion I am concerned about because that was back in 1996.
A Yes, yes, I did go on another occasion.
Q Which solicitor did you go with? Was it Beth Parry?
A No, it was not.
Q It was another firm, was it, or the same firm but a different solicitor?
A Yes, Mr Townsend.
Q I interrupted you, I am sorry. Was it the same firm as Beth Parry’s firm?
A I do not think it was, no, because I had to have separate representation from my husband.
Q Was it separate representation for the purposes of, for example, the interim care order proceedings, or was it with a view to possible criminal proceedings? I am not at the moment able to understand the factual circumstances?
A I was told it was for the interim proceedings.
Q So it follows, does it, that since the interim care proceedings only arose as a real possibility after the EPO, it must have been some time after 29 January that you went to the police station
A Yes, it was.
Q When you went to the police station did the police officer, whoever it may have been, and the name does not concern me, did he or she attempt to ask you some questions about the belt?
A Yes, he did.
Q Did you say “no comment” to the police officer’s questions?
A Yes, I did.
Q Was that on the advice of your solicitor?
A Yes, it was.
Q Let us just move on a stage. Again, this is still before 27April. Did you go to see Dora Black?
A I cannot remember if it was before Professor Southall or afterwards.
Q Can I suggest to you that it was before and it was certainly round about 15 April?
A Okay.
Q It may be that, as a result of further questions I am going to ask you, we might be able to get a clearer picture, but first of all, where did you see Dr Black?
A In London.
Q When you came down to London, did you come down with your youngest child?
A My youngest child and my husband.
Q So Dr Black saw all three of you, did she?
A Yes, she did.
Q You came to London – and I am using your expression which is in a statement we have from you – and you went to see the sights, did you not?
A Yes, we did.
Q Then you saw Dr Black and you thought she was a really nice lady, did you not?
A Yes, I did.
Q She came across to you at the time as being really concerned about your youngest child?
A That is correct.
Q She came across to you as being really concerned about your relationship with your husband?
A I do not agree with that. She did not seem that concerned about my relationship with my husband.
Q It depends in the sense in which one uses the word “concerned.” Put it this way: was she showing particular interest in your and your husband’s relationship?
A She mentioned it in the past tense, but was pleased that we had sorted things out, when we actually went to see her, 18 months prior to seeing her.
Q I appreciate this is quite some time ago; it is six years ago now, or more, six-and-a-half years ago. Just try and think back. Do you remember Dr Black expressing concern not only about your youngest child but also about you and your husband’s relationship?
A Yes, it was mentioned, yes.
Q It may have been mentioned but did she express real concern?
A I cannot remember if she expressed real concern.
Q Mrs M, this is just a purely administrative matter, but do you have in front of you, there in Australia, a copy of your witness statement you made this year to Field Fisher Waterhouse?
A Yes, I do – not in front of me at the moment though.
Q Is it obtainable?
A Yes, it is.
Q Can you just help us? Where would you have to go to get it?
A No, not at the moment, no. It would take me about half an hour, an hour, to get it.
Q I do not want to break off at the moment but let us see how we can proceed without doing that and see how we can go. Can I just suggest to you that, first of all, you remember making a witness statement in June of this year?
A Yes, I do.
Q To Field Fisher Waterhouse, for the purposes of these proceedings?
A Yes, that is correct.
Q I am just doing this simply to try and assist your recollection or judgement which was present at the time you made the statement. That is all.
A Okay.
Q Mr Tyson has this as well and I am looking at paragraph 10. I am just going to quote a sentence from a paragraph in that statement and can you tell me whether it jogs your memory or not. You are dealing with seeing Dr Black in London:
“I cannot remember if she asked about how my eldest child died. She was really concerned about my youngest child and about my and my husband’s relationship.”
All right?
A That is right, yes.
Q I hope you do not think I am being unfair, but that is how you were putting it, you see, to Field Fisher Waterhouse in June of this year. Do you accept that that is an accurate recall of your experience when you went to see Dr Black?
A Yes, that is correct.
Q Is it also your recollection that there was really very little focus, if any, on the circumstances or the fact of your eldest child’s death?
A Yes, that is correct.
Q With that in mind – when I say “that” in mind, all those factors that you and I have just covered in mind – by the time that you arrived for the meeting with Dr Southall on
27 April, you thought you would be going for a medical?
A Yes.
Q And is this right – and I want you, please, to listen very carefully. Did you think that this interview with Dr Southall, this medical, was going to be – and I choose my words deliberately – did you think it was going to be an emotional examination? An examination of your thoughts and feelings?
A An examination of my thoughts and feelings.
Q You did?
A I did, yes.
Q In other words, to be emotionally examined?
A Yes.
Q So in other words, to be emotionally examined, to be asked questions about your thoughts and feelings, just as had happened with Dr Black?
A Yes.
Q And Dr Black’s discussions with you were directed towards your thoughts and feelings, were they not?
A Yes, they were.
Q And so with that expectation that this interview would be just like Dr Dora Black’s interview, when Dr Southall began asking you questions relating to the circumstances surrounding your eldest child’s death you must have been seriously jolted?
A Could you repeat that? Sorry. I never heard that.
Q When Dr Southall began to ask you some questions about the circumstances surrounding your eldest son’s death you must have been seriously jolted because ---
A Yes, I was.
Q It was – I hope this is not an exaggeration on my part – but it was wholly unexpected?
A Yes, it was.
Q Mrs M, may I just ask you a few questions, please, about yourself, about how you were feeling when you arrived for the interview. In your evidence this morning in England but, of course, this evening in Adelaide, you said that your emotions were very high indeed. That is right, is it not?
A Yes. That is correct.
Q When you say your emotions were very high indeed, it may be obvious but can you just help us a little more. Does that mean, for example, that you were, as it were --- Were you on a knife edge? Were you upset or tearful before you went into the interview? You help us?
A I was not tearful. I was not on a knife-edge. I was upset at the fact that my son had been taken away and I just wanted it all sorted out.
Q So you were upset even before you went in?
A I was not teary upset, no. I was just upset that things had just progressed as they did.
Q So emotionally upset, but not teary?
A Yes.
Q Of course it is not difficult, perhaps, for us to understand why that may be the case because you have had the tragic death of your eldest son in 1996, your youngest son had spent some time with foster parents in the earlier part of 1998 until returned to you by the judge. Yes?
A Yes. Sorry, yes.
Q And of course, was it not the case had left?
A Sorry?
Q Had your husband left you at about this time?
A No.
Q Was he still with you?
A Yes.
Q So if we just try and bring the events of 27 April to life a little more, right at the beginning, no doubt when you are going into the hospital premises at Stoke on Trent, you were emotionally upset within you, no doubt anxious about what was going to happen?
A Yes.
Q Thought it would be an interview just like Dora Black’s interview?
A Yes.
Q Just wanted the whole thing sorted out?
A That is right, yes.
Q Because, of course, there was a real possibility that the case would go back to court and there might be an application by the social services for a full care order?
A That is correct, yes.
Q Because obviously – this may be obvious but I would like your comment on it – if the investigation or assessment which you knew social services were going to carry out, if that did turn up evidence of Munchausen syndrome by proxy, that would, as it were, tend towards an application in due course for a full care order, would it not?
A That is correct, yes.
Q And so it is not surprising that you were anxious when you when to see Dr Southall?
A Yes.
Q Now, nobody had suggested to you that you should take somebody with you?
A No. Nobody said anything like that.
Q When you refer to “nobody,” can we just examine, please, who you are referring to there. Does that carry with it an expectation that if somebody was going to tell you to bring somebody, that person would have been somebody in social services?
A I was not given that, no. No. I took it to mean I could have taken anybody, but nobody told me I could have done before I went to that meeting.
Q I follow. So you walk into this room in the hospital and you find Dr Southall, together with Francine Salem?
A That is correct, yes.
Q And this Francine Salem was the social worker who had been instrumental in the application for an emergency protection order, had she not?
A Yes. Yes, she had.
Q And you knew that, did you not?
A I knew that, yes.
Q And she been involved in the application for an interim care order?
A That is correct.
Q And I think she had given evidence in those proceedings?
A Yes, she did. Yes.
Q So when you walked into that room and saw her, first of all that was wholly unexpected, was it not?
A I was very surprised to see her there, yes.
Q But you must have been someone upset and annoyed that she was present?
A No. I was not annoyed or upset. I just was not told that she would be there.
Q But you were sufficiently concerned at her presence during that interview that you got your solicitor subsequently to write a letter of complaint to social services that she was present, did you not?
A That is correct. Yes, I did.
Q Again, “being a little surprised” to find somebody is not something which generates letters of complaint, is it?
A Yes, because I was not told that she would be there. I just thought it would be me and Professor Southall.
Q But certainly you did not like the idea of her being present. Is that right?
A Not really, no. I did not want her there, no.
Q Did you object?
A No, I did not object. No.
Q But this was a woman who you discover for the first time sitting in on this interview; this was a woman who, I suggest, as you understood it had suspected you, and still suspected you, of suffering from Munchausen’s?
A That is right, yes.
Q Did Francine Salem say anything to you at all?
A No, nothing at all.
Q Not even, “Hello”?
A No. Not even “Hello”.
Q Are you sure about that?
A Yes, I am.
Q I can put in this way, and again I hope I do not exaggerate, but she was totally mute throughout the interview, was she?
A Yes she was.
Q Could I just suggest a couple of things. First of all, that she did say, “Hello”. Yes? Or not?
A If she did, I did not hear her.
Q Oh! Well, how could you have failed not to hear somebody say, “Hello” when you are in ---
A That is why I said in my statement she never said anything, because I never heard her speak one word.
Q Again, I do not want to be pedantic about this but you are in, I suggest, a small room. Professor Southall is there. Francine Salem is there. If you did not hear her say, “Hello,” it must follow on your evidence that she did not say, “Hello”?
A She did not say, “Hello”.
Q I am going to suggest to you that she did, and she said, “Hello, Mrs M,” and I am going to suggest to you that she said something to you along the line of, that she was there just as a social worker, as she assumed to be the case had been present when you saw Dora Black?
A No, she did not say that all.
Q So she did not mention anything to you about her understanding of there being a social worker present when you saw Dr Black? Can I be sure about that, and be clear about it?
A That is right, yes. Yes, I am.
Q Again, I want to make the position the position clear so that you are not misled and nobody else is. I suggest that not only did she say “Hello”. There was a brief reference to her understanding, that there was a social worker present when you saw Dr Black?
A There was not one at Dr Black.
Q No, I appreciate that.
A And I ---
Q I appreciate that. I am not suggesting there was. What I am suggesting is that France Salem observed or is there a comment which reflected her understanding or belief that there had been. Do you follow?
A Oh, right.
Q But you reject my suggestion, do you?
A I do, yes.
Q I also want to suggest to you that Francine Salem occasionally chipped in in this interview purely to provide additional pieces of information or to put a gloss on any other piece of information that Dr Southall or you were bringing into the discussion. Did she do that or not?
A She spoke to Professor Southall. Sorry. She did speak to Professor Southall, yes, but directly to me.
Q Ah! What was she saying to Professor Southall?
A She was filling him in – the extra information.
Q Exactly.
A But she did not speak to me.
Q I am not suggesting that she, as it were, was part of the interviewing process, but the idea that she just sat there totally mute through is wrong, is it not?
A Well, yes, because she spoke to Professor Southall.
Q Did she have any papers with her?
A A pad and a pencil, yes.
Q And she was taking notes, was she not?
A She was, yes.
Q And did you see Dr Southall making any notes?
A Yes, I did.
Q Before we look at the content of the interview, Mrs M, could I just ask you about two matters in relation to the way in which both those two people dealt with you. Frequently, during the interview Francine Salem smiled at you in a sympathetic way, did she not?
A No.
Q Did she not smile at all?
A No, she did not smile at me.
Q So just tell us: did she just sit there – this is my expression – but did she just sit there with a stony face, or what?
A Yes. Yes, she did.
Q When you saw your solicitor later on, and we are going to hear evidence from your solicitor, you accused Francine Salem of sitting there smirking, did you not?
A Possibly, yes, but she was not smiling at me.
Q Who was she smiling at?
A I do not know.
Q I suggest to you that you had a pretty dim view of Francine Salem’s presence there because, I suggest, you were somewhat fearful of this woman’s motives in being there, bearing in mind the risk to you of a further application for a full hearing?
A No, I was not fearful of Francine Salem at all.
Q Why did you describe Francine Salem as smirking?
A Because she was grinning as she was writing.
Q You perceived that as smirking, did you?
A Yes, I did.
Q Dr David Southall: I want to suggest to you on his behalf, first of all two things. First of all, that throughout this interview he was indeed polite?
A No, he was not.
Q That he was indeed courteous?
A No, he was not.
Q And that he was indeed calm?
A No, he was not.
Q Next, I want to suggest to you that during the whole of this interview he conducted it in such a way as to allow you to answer in your own time.
A No, he did not.
Q You deny that, do you?
A Yes, I do.
Q In your evidence this morning you said that “Dr Southall was asking questions one after the other. He did not let me explain. He just kept on questioning me”.
A That is correct.
Q That, if I may say so, gives or may give the impression of somebody who is just steamrollering his way through this interview, asking questions, not listening to what you have to say, not allowing you to answer in your own time, and just simply not listening at all. Is that right?
A That is right.
Q That is the picture you want this panel to have, is it?
A That is the picture that it was that day of the interview.
Q There is just one aspect of this, and it is one that you have specifically denied a few minutes ago when you denied the specific suggestion I put to you that he allowed you to answer in your own time, and you say that is not true.
A He let me answer about the way that the belt was tied in my own time, but that was all.
Q That was all?
A He was intrigued on how my son had done it.
Q You see, the interview itself, as we can tell from the note that you have been shown by Francine Salem, covered quite a number of aspects of the case, did it not?
A Yes.
Q I just need to know from you whether you are saying that throughout this interview he did not allow you to answer in your own time?
A He kept interrupting me when I was explaining. When he asked me the question,
I tried to answer but before I answered, he asked me another question.
Q I am going to suggest to you that the picture you are painting is simply incorrect, and
I want to put to you what I suggest was the picture. First of all, that he allowed you to answer the questions he put in your own time?
A No, that is not correct.
Q You say that is not correct.
A Yes.
Q But I suggest on occasion he was persistent in the sense that he kept returning to aspects of the first question that he had put because he wanted further information about a particular aspect of the main question. Now, that is the picture, is it not?
A No. No.
Q Then I am driven now to ask you, please, and I know you have not physically got it but I am going to read to you what you said in your witness statement in June of this year on this topic. It is paragraph 42. “I would not agree with the suggestion that Professor Southall was polite and courteous throughout.” Then this: “I can agree that he allowed me to answer in my own time. He was very persistent and kept returning to questions if I did not answer particular questions to which he wanted answers.” Now that is very different, is it not?
A He kept returning to one specific question after each of the questions he asked me, and that is when he allowed me to answer that specific question.
Q As you will appreciate, I am not disputing the fact that he may have asked you on more than one occasion the same question perhaps in a different guise but directed to the same topic. That I do not dispute, but the idea you are putting across is that this is a man, this doctor, this professor, did not allow you to answer questions in your own time. I suggest to you that is false.
A No, that is true.
Q And Francine Salem therefore would have witnessed, would she not, the manner in which Dr Southall was conducting this interview?
A Yes, she would.
Q Do you accept that the questions that he put were clear and straightforward?
A Yes, they were.
Q Rather than just for the moment at least following the structure of the content of the evidence that you gave this morning, or indeed this evening in your case, you have, in effect, accused this doctor of being aggressive, of being accusatory in his manner to you, or threatening you, of hectoring you, of being sarcastic, of saying he did not believe you. I do not suggest that is an exclusive list of the descriptions that could be applied if your evidence is accurate, but in respect of any one of those descriptions, I am going to suggest to you that the picture you are painting is not correct.
A It is correct.
Q But I, on his behalf, allow you this, that you did not like the questions that he was putting; you did not like the pointedness of the questions; and you have treated them as if he was accusing you, threatening you, hectoring you, and actually saying he did not believe you?
A That is right, yes.
Q There is a difference, is there not?
A I do not think there is.
Q Again, so that we are clear about this, this picture of a doctor behaving in the ways in which I have just described, would all have been witnessed by Francine Salem, the senior social worker sitting in that room feet away. Is that right?
A That is right, yes.
Q Mrs M, can you indicate at any stage if you would like a break? I appreciate we have been going now for nearly three hours, although you have had a short break.
A No, I am fine.
Q Are you sure?
A I am fine, thanks, yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: Perhaps we can go on for another 15 minutes, if Mrs M is all right, and then we will take another break.
MR COONAN: This document which you were taken to and you have gone through with
Mr Tyson, Mrs M, earlier in the course of your evidence, do you still have it there?
A That is Francine Salem’s note?
Q That is right.
A Yes, I do have it.
Q You have agreed that she was making notes of the conversation?
A Yes.
Q Mr Tyson did not actually ask you to look at every single one of these paragraphs, although the majority he did, but certainly in relation to the paragraphs that you were asked to look at, apart from three instances where you say to the panel that you cannot recall saying something during the course of the interview, you in effect do not challenge the content of this document at all, do you?
A No.
Q So Francine Salem has captured the content of the interview pretty well?
A As far as I believe, yes.
Q And, leaving aside the three instances where you cannot recall saying it, it is pretty well – and again I do not want to labour the point – or 100 per cent accurate, is it not?
A I would not say 100 per cent.
Q I am going to give you all the opportunity you wish to say what you challenge as being wrong or not said by you in this document.
A OK. It is pretty accurate, yes.
Q You say “pretty accurate”. I am going to suggest to you it is 100 per cent accurate, is it not?
A Yes.
Q Again, as I understand it, what therefore you are saying is that Francine Salem, sitting there in that room, capturing everything that is said by Dr Southall and yourself, in terms of the content here 100 per cent accurate, has simply sanitised the account, deliberately sanitised the account, by excluding from it the fact that you were accused of murdering your child three times. Is that right, because it does not appear here, does it?
A No, it does not. No.
Q In particular, the way you put it just before the short break, the last of the three allegations of murder: “He turned to me and said ‘I put it to you that you injected your child, stringing him up’ ” – that is the phrase you used, ‘stringing him up’ – “left him to die and rang the ambulance”. There is not a word of that in this document, is there?
A There is not, no.
Q It may be self-evident but there is no reference in the document to Dr Southall putting positively assertions to you and saying he rejected your answer – not a word of that either, is there?
A No, there is not.
Q And there is not a word, is there, of the evidence you have given to the effect that
Dr Southall accused you of being guilty of murder simply because you would not or were reluctant to answer questions about the belt?
A There is nothing in there at all, no.
Q I am going to suggest to you that in particular, if you look at the bottom of the third page of the note, right at the bottom --- Do you see the reference to the belt?
A Yes.
Q If you look at it again, forgive me if I just read part of this out and I do not want to upset you but I think it ought to be read into the transcript.
“Mrs M initially declined to talk to Professor Southall about how the belt was tied around your eldest child’s neck. Mrs M said that she would be pleased to talk about it if it cleared her name, but she had been advised not to by her solicitor.”
Pausing there, we have just dealt with that earlier. All right?
A That is right, yes.
Q So that is right.
“Professor Southall told Mrs M that he felt that this was a crucial piece of information that was needed. Mrs M did tell Professor Southall as she felt she wanted to prove her innocence and that she could do this through explaining how the belt was tied”.
That account by Francine Salem, Mrs M, is exactly as it is written.
A I do not agree with that.
Q There was no browbeating; there was no threat; and there was no imputation that unless you talked, you must be guilty, was there?
A That is what was said to me by Professor Southall.
Q What I think is quite clear from the content of your evidence is that you accept that Professor Southall mentioned that there were in effect three scenarios that would be the subject of consideration at part of this investigation and assessment, did he not?
A I am sorry, could you say that again, please?
Q Yes. What Professor Southall was saying, I suggest, was that as part of this investigation and assessment – in other words the investigation and assessment that you have given evidence about and knew was going to take place by social services – as part of that investigation, three scenarios would have to be considered?
A Yes.
Q (1) accident; (2) suicide and (3) murder.
A Yes.
Q When he mentioned the third such scenario, in other words, that this investigation would have to consider the question of murder, you must have been extremely upset.
A I was upset, yes.
Q Simply because he had told you that this assessment and investigation would have to consider it as one of the three options.
A Yes, that is right.
Q The questions that he went on to ask: about the belt, about your knowledge of injections, about the circumstances generally, about your eldest son’s death, all those factors, coupled with the fact that he had even mentioned the question of murder, led you to think – to think – that he was accusing you of murder of your eldest child. Is that not right?
A No. He did accuse me of murder of my eldest child.
Q Do you accept that the first time the question therefore of murder generally was raised was in fact in the course of this interview by Dr Southall?
A Yes.
Q So nobody had ever said that to you before?
A No.
Q Did you not understand that questions about your eldest son were being asked in the interests of your youngest son?
A Not at the time, no.
Q I just want to have a brief word about the question of drugs and medication. I do not dispute for a moment that the topic was raised by Dr Southall and he asked you about your knowledge or experience of drugs. I suggest he raised that in the context that the question of whether or not your eldest son had been drugged may be an issue which would have to be looked at. Those were not his exact words; it is my summary of his position. Do you understand?
A Yes, I do.
Q Do you also understand that there is a distinction to be drawn between that suggestion which I put to you and an outright accusation by Dr Southall that you had in fact drugged and then hung your eldest son? Do you see the difference?
A Well, no, not really, because he was asking me the questions and then he told me what I had done.
Q Lest there be any doubt about it, I have to put this to you. At no stage during the course of this interview did Dr Southall say, assert, accuse you of having done anything.
A Yes, he did.
Q What you did by putting two and two and two together is of course a different matter. It may be – I know not – that you walked out thinking that this man had accused you of murder, but he had not.
A He did accuse me of murder.
Q At the time when you left the interview, you have told us ---
THE CHAIRMAN: If you are moving on to a separate topic, Mr Coonan, would this be a good time to break?
MR COONAN: Certainly, madam.
THE CHAIRMAN: We will take a 15-minute break now, Mrs M. I need to remind you that you are on oath and should not discuss the case or your evidence with anyone.
(The Panel adjourned for a short time)
MR TYSON: Madam, I note that on the screen, the witness is not here, but what I have to say does not in fact at the moment require her. I have asked the Panel to be recalled simply on a human basis that it is as I understand it 10.30 at night in Adelaide and this witness started giving evidence at about six o’clock. The plan is that she goes on until about midnight, which will be 1.30 our time. It appeared to me that it was only human that she should be entitled at some time during the course of that to have a meal of some sort, to have her supper.
It is entirely my fault; I should have raised the issue before we adjourned for 15 minutes.
I would invite you to ask the witness when she returns when she would appreciate the opportunity of having a slightly longer break so that she could have her evening meal.
THE CHAIRMAN: Mr Tyson, I was unaware that this might be an issue with the witness. Obviously, as you have raised it, it would be entirely appropriate for us to at least give her that opportunity. When she returns, I will ask her if she would like a longer break.
MR TYSON: My learned friend as I understand it agrees with my sentiments.
MR COONAN: Madam, both Mr Tyson and I have discussed it, both on a human level, bearing in mind the amount of time she is having to deal with, certainly the invitation should be given to her. Very often in my experience, witnesses decline offers of comfort breaks, but it is important, because quite clearly one does not want any suggestion that proper facilities were not accorded to her and thus the quality of her evidence was in any way affected. That is I think an important point.
(The video link was re-established)
THE CHAIRMAN: Mrs M, can you hear us?
A Yes, I can.
THE CHAIRMAN: Before we carry on, I have something important I would like to ask you. That is, for your own comfort and well being, do you in fact need a longer break in order to get a proper meal? Do not hesitate to say so if you do need a longer break.
A No, I am fine, thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN: We are very clear that you should feel comfortable and able to continue giving evidence totally happily and we are prepared to break for longer if you wish.
A No, it is okay. There is nowhere open, anyway! I am fine, honestly. Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN: In that case, we will accept your reassurance, but if you need a break to get a drink or anything before you have finished, please feel free to say so.
A Thank you very much.
THE CHAIRMAN: Mr Coonan will now continue.
MR COONAN: Mrs M, when you gave evidence this morning, you said that at the end of the interview you were upset, angry, crying and sick.
A Yes.
Q Were you hysterical at any stage?
A No, I was not hysterical.
Q At no stage were you hysterical. Is that right?
A Sorry, can you say that again, please?
Q At no stage were you hysterical.
A Not when I left the meeting, no.
Q But during the meeting, were you hysterical?
A I would not say hysterical. I was getting very upset.
Q Let us take this slowly. During the course of the interview, were you crying?
A Yes, I was.
Q Were you sitting down?
A Yes, I was.
Q Were you sitting down with Professor Southall in front of you?
A Yes, I was.
Q Was Francine Salem in front of you too?
A No, she was not. She was at the back, to my side. She was at the side of me, but slightly back from me.
Q When you were crying, how were you crying?
A How was I crying?
Q Yes. Was it just a single tear, was it a good cry? I hope what I am saying makes sense.
A A good cry.
Q Did you need tissues?
A Yes, I had tissues.
Q Did you fish those out and use them?
A Yes, I did.
Q How long did the good cry last for?
A I am sorry, I do not follow.
Q I agree it is a long time ago, but can you attempt to give the Panel some idea – and
I am not being facetious – was it five minutes, a minute, two minutes, three minutes? You tell us.
A Two or three minutes.
Q When you were crying for two or three minutes, was there a pause in the interview once you were crying?
A Yes.
Q By that, do we understand that no further questions were being put to you?
A No, I do not think so. Sorry, I cannot remember.
Q Your impression is that there was a pause. At what stage did you start having this proper cry?
A I do not remember. I am sorry.
Q You have told us that you had a proper cry lasting for two or three minutes. Were you at that stage, or indeed at any stage during the course of the interview, hysterical?
A Not that I can recall, no.
Q Mrs M, I have to suggest to you that your evidence in part has been infected – whether deliberately or otherwise is not for me to say – with a degree of exaggeration and over-sensitivity about these matters. I want to suggest to you that you alleged earlier that you were hysterical during the course of this interview. Do you remember making that allegation?
A No, I cannot remember.
Q Again, Mr Tyson has this. In your witness statement made this year, in June, after Professor Southall had accused you of murdering your youngest child, you said this:
“By this stage I was hysterical. I was crying and I felt sick. I had just been accused of murdering my son.”
I ask you again: were you hysterical?
A I was not hysterical, not in the interview, no, but I was crying.
Q Why did you tell Field Fisher Waterhouse that you were hysterical?
A I was hysterical when I got to the solicitors.
Q Let us just pause there for a minute. I think the evidence is going to be that you did not go to the solicitors until two days later.
A I went straight to the solicitors. The social worker took me round there straight from the hospital.
Q We will examine that later, but I want to stay with this point please. You alleged,
I suggest, in your statement to Field Fisher Waterhouse in June of this year that immediately following the allegation that you murdered your child you were hysterical and were crying and sick at that stage. Are you saying that is not true?
A I would not say I was hysterical, no.
Q Why did you say it?
A Maybe I got my times wrong. I was hysterical in the solicitors.
Q Again, it is absolutely clear, I suggest, that when you made your statement to Field Fisher Waterhouse you were saying in terms that immediately following the allegation by Professor Southall that you had murdered your child you said “by this stage I was hysterical.” It is nothing to do with going to see a solicitor. That was false, was it not?
A I cannot remember being hysterical in the interview.
Q So that the record is clear, I have given you that quotation from a statement which
I appreciate you do not have in front of you, but is signed by you and dated 28 June of this year, made for the purposes of these proceedings. Let us just leave hysteria on one side and let us just deal with the question of the good cry for two or three minutes. We have a picture, therefore, do we, of you having this good cry and these two, Professor Southall and Francine Salem, sitting there watching you cry. Is that right?
A That is right, yes.
Q Again, it may be self-evident, but there is no suggestion in Francine Salem’s note of any distress at all, is there?
A No, it does say that, no.
Q I do not want my position to be misunderstood unintentionally, but nonetheless I do not want it to be misunderstood. I grant you that you may well have been, to a degree, upset because Dr Southall even mentioned the possibility that this assessment and investigation was going or would have to consider at least the question of murder. Do you follow my position?
A Yes, I do.
Q But that such degree of upset was not demonstrated in any way at all. There was no sustained crying for two or three minutes. That is my suggestion to you. Can I solicit an answer from you for the transcript?
A Sorry, I am having trouble hearing.
Q I want to put a suggestion to you and I want to be sure that you have heard the earlier part of what I put, so my I retrace my steps.
A Certainly, yes please.
Q I do not want the position to be misunderstood. I entirely accept on Dr Southall’s behalf that you may have been, to a degree, upset simply because of the topics that were touched upon, which included, as one of the three scenarios, a reference to murder.
A I agree.
Q But that any upset that you may have had was not demonstrated. In other words, there was no sustained crying for two or three minutes or anything like that.
A I agree, yes.
Q Do you say that there was crying or not crying?
A There was crying.
Q And that when you left the interview you were upset because Dr Southall had simply referred to the topic of murder, but no more than that at stage?
A I do not agree with that, no. He called me a murderer.
Q When you left the room was it your state of mind, just putting this in broad terms, that you found the interview offensive because you took the view that Dr Southall had gone beyond his remit?
A I believe so.
Q Did you know at that stage what his remit was?
A I did at that stage, yes.
Q What was it?
A Sorry, I cannot hear you.
Q When you left the room did you think that Dr Southall had gone beyond his remit?
A Yes, I did.
Q Did you know at that stage what his remit was?
A Yes.
Q What was it?
A I took it to be that he wanted to find out how my son had died, and he obviously thought I had done it.
Q I do not want to get into a semantic dispute, but you have agreed that you thought he had gone beyond his remit.
A Yes, in the way he questioned me, yes.
Q What did you think was his remit in the first place?
A I just thought he was going to be me and him, just a general talk about my emotions, how I was feeling, and he was very aggressive in the way that he spoke to me, the way that he asked me the questions, and it was just one after another. I thought it would be a bit more relaxed, and it seemed to be all about my son and not about my second son, which is what
I thought it was going to be as well; but my second son was not mentioned.
Q At all?
A At all. Not at all, no.
Q Mrs M, that, with respect, is simply not right because even in Francine Salem’s note there are references to your youngest son. That is right, is it not?
A Professor Southall never asked me directly anything about my youngest son.
Q Let us just move on please to the events after leaving that interview room. When you left, your understanding is that you went to see your solicitor, the same day?
A That is right, yes.
Q So there is no doubt about it, you are referring here to Beth Parry, are you?
A Yes, I am.
Q Did you actually see her face to face
A I did, yes.
Q Are you saying that the same day you gave her a full account of what had happened?
A Yes, I feel I did.
Q Are you saying that you gave her the sort of full account that you had given to this Panel today?
A Yes, I do.
Q We will hear, as you may or may not know, Mrs M, from your solicitor when she comes to give evidence, but is it not the case that you confined yourself to a telephone call to the solicitor but did not see her until two days later?
A No, the social worker that picked me up to take me to Stoke took me round to see Beth.
Q Do you remember seeing Dr Solomon, who we understand is now called Dr Corfield, the next day?
A On the what? sorry.
Q The next day?
A I cannot recall it, no.
Q I am sorry to interrupt.
A It is okay.
Q Do you remember going to see Dr Corfield at any stage after the interview?
A Yes, I do remember that. I do not know what day it was though.
Q When you saw Dr Corfield did you give her the account that you have given to the Panel today?
A I think I mentioned it, yes. I do not know in how much detail. I did mention it.
I cannot remember.
Q Did you tell Dr Corfield that Dr Southall had accused you in stark terms of murdering your eldest child?
A Yes, I am sure I did.
Q Because this is a doctor, Dr Solomon, somebody that you trusted, was it not?
A That is right, yes.
Q There would have been no reason for you not to unburden yourself completely of the experiences that you had in the interview, would there?
A That is right.
Q Mrs M, I am going now just to turn to one last matter. I should just cover this, however, although we touched on it earlier. During the time that you saw your solicitor – you say it was the same day, we will hear the evidence about that – whenever it was, you complained through your solicitor about the presence of Francine Salem at that interview and complaint was made to social services by letter?
A That is right, yes.
Q Again, it is self-evident but there was no complaint by your solicitor about the conduct of Professor Southall, was there?
A No, not that I am aware of.
Q These events took place in April 1998. Did you become aware of a woman called Mrs Mellor?
A Yes. I am, yes.
Q And did you make contact with Ms Mellor?
A Ms Mellor, no. She got in touch with me
Q She got in touch with you. So that we identify the correct person, she is called Penny Mellor, is she not?
A That is right, yes.
Q And I just want to establish one or two simple facts. Did she come to act as an advocate for you in relation to complaints relating to Dr Southall?
A She wanted to, yes.
Q Well, she did become an advocate for you, did she not?
A I did not ask her to write any complaint. She just said that she would act for me.
Q And however it came about – I am frankly not interested in that but I am just interested in the fact that she did adopt that mantle as advocate – she had done that at the latest by about 1999?
A I am not sure. I had no further contact with her after she got in touch with me. I had very little contact with her.
Q But if I suggested that date to you, you are not in a position to comment either way. Is that right?
A Yes. That is right, yes.
Q And just this. This woman is the coordinator of a campaign group, is she not?
A So I believe, yes.
Q And she campaigns against the very notion that there should be a diagnosis of Munchausen’s?
A I am sorry. Can you say that again, please.
Q She campaigns – her group, led by her – campaigns against the very notion of the existence of a diagnosis of Munchausen’s?
A Yes, I believe so.
Q And again, I do not want to be overly generalist about this, but perhaps I suggest this would do: that in that guise she has mounted campaigns against paediatricians who have been involved in diagnoses of Munchausen’s?
A I cannot comment on that. I do not know the woman or what she does really. I have had one conversation with her, and that was it.
Q Any correspondence?
A I cannot remember if I did or not.
Q But she introduced herself to you as, presumably, somebody and what her role was?
A She introduced me to herself, yes, but she was not clear on her role.
Q But at least you knew at that stage when she offered her services as an advocate for you, that she headed up an activist group. Is that right?
A I was not aware of it being an activist group. I am not sure what I thought, to be honest. I really do not. I cannot comment on that, I am sorry.
Q Finally this, Mrs M. It is a question I have to put to you, as I will probably put to others. Have you in recent times been interviewed by the press?
A Yes.
Q When was that?
A Oh, I cannot remember when it was.
Q My question was, “in recent times”. Was it last week, last month, last year or what?
A It was not last year. It was a while ago, yes.
Q Again, I am sorry to press you, but when you say “a while ago,” that could mean many things. It is rather like a piece of string.
A 1999.
Q Have you not been interviewed by the press since?
A No.
Q Sure about that?
A I cannot remember.
Q Mrs M, you went to Australia, so we are told, in was it August or September of this year?
A September.
Q Whilst you have been in Australia, have the press interviewed you either by telephone or video link at all?
A No, nothing.
Q Right.
A No, none at all.
Q Before you went when you were in this country, since 1999 have the press or any member of the press in whatever guise interviewed you about these events?
A No. They tried to, but they have not.
MR COONAN: Mrs M, those are all the questions I have for you. Thank you very much.
MR TYSON: With respect, my learned friend, if he is suggesting to my client that she has talked to the press, he should put the publication or whatever to her, rather than dance around the question.
MR COONAN: This is not a question of dancing. It was an inquiry. If the answer is given in that way, I accept it. There is no suggestion in the light of that answer. The question was prompted by the intervention from the press gallery on the first day.
MR TYSON: I am glad my learned friend makes that clear, because my clear understanding of the line of questioning was that you were doubting this witness’s account and had, fact, your proverbial back copy, some document that you were going to put to her.
MR COONAN: I am not sure that now is the time for Mr Tyson to comment. You have heard the way I made the inquiry of the witness. I do not retract the inquiry. I have received the answers and as far as I am concerned, that is it.
MR TYSON: I am grateful for the way my learned friend now puts it.
Re-examined by MR TYSON
Q Mrs M, I need to ask you some questions arising out of the question that you have just been asked by Dr Southall’s barrister, and you were asked just now about a lady called
Ms Mellor. Do you recall writing to the General Medical Council with a letter of complaint dated 15 March 2002?
A Yes, I do.
Q And do you recall making mention of that woman in your letter of complaint to the General Medical Council?
A Yes, I do.
Q And did you say these words:
“I am writing further to our telephone conversation regarding the possibility of a
Ms Penny Mellor writing to you on my behalf i.e. a complaint against Professor David Southall, North Staffordshire Hospital.
I wish to inform you that I DO NOT want Ms Mellor to have anything to do with my complaint with which I will explain to you now.”
Is that what you told the General Medical Council?
A Yes, I remember.
Q And was that your position in 2002 and was it your position earlier than 2002?
A Sorry. Can you say that again, please.
Q You said that that was your position in 2002, and my question is, was it your position earlier than 2002 that you did not want this lady involved in your matters?
A That is correct.
Q And you told the Panel that your involvement with her was some time, I think you said, in 1998. I do not want to misquote you on that, but your contact with her amounted to one conversation which you took no further. Is that right?
A That is right, yes.
Q Turning to other matters, you were asked about the matter coming to the court in front of a judge called Judge Tonking. Do you remember that?
A Yes. I do, yes.
Q Did the case last a number of days?
A Yes, it did.
Q And did the local authority want to keep your youngest child with foster parents?
A Yes, they did.
Q And was the result of the hearing that, in fact, your youngest child was restored to you?
A Yes, he was.
Q Were you present when the judge gave his judgment?
A Yes, I was.
Q Have you at any time seen a copy of the judge’s judgment?
A Yes, I have.
Q So it is clear for the sake of the transcript, I am going to put to this witness a transcript of the copy of the judgment of His Honour Judge Tonking on Tuesday 10 March 1998. Do you recall, Mrs M, that the judge listed some ten reasons why the local authority wanted your youngest to remain in foster care?
A I can remember a long list, but I cannot remember exactly what they were.
Q And for the sake of the transcript, I am putting page 3H down to and including 4H of the transcript. Also, did the judge recall that were three reasons why the guardian,
Mrs Inwood, felt that the youngest child should remain in foster care?
A Yes. I believe that is correct.
Q And did the judge say these words?
MR COONAN: I am sorry to interrupt. Can you make it clear there is the reference to the threshold criteria?
MR TYSON: Yes. Did the judge say, and you can be shown the document if necessary somehow, at page 5F:
“Notable for its absence in those lists of grounds on which it is said that the threshold is crossed is the suggestion, which was a significant part of the local authority’s case when the Emergency Protection Order was obtained, is a suggestion that it was suspected that the mother suffers from Munchausen’s Syndrome or Syndrome by Proxy.”
Do you recall ---
A Yes.
Q --- that the local authority abandoned Munchausen’s symptom syndrome by proxy as a ground for seeking your youngest child to remain in care by March 1998?
A Yes. I remember that.
Q And you recall the judge saying – this is at 6G:
“As to this point it, should be borne in mind it does not follow that, because the local authority have at this stage abandoned that particular argument that there are reasonable grounds for believing that [your child] is at significant risk because of Munchausen’s on the part of mother…”.
That there was a significant risk for your child.
A Yes, I remember that also.
Q You were asked also about seeing Dr Black?
A Yes.
Q And you were asked to compare the question of the style of interviewing of Dr Black with Professor Southall. Do you remember those questions?
A Yes, I do.
Q You indicated that the way she was asking questions was different from the way that Professor Southall was asking questions?
A That is right, yes.
Q Are you aware that one of the questions that she was asked to look at is to whether there was Munchausen’s syndrome by proxy in this case?
A Yes, I was.
Q In the course of the proceedings, did you see that lady’s report?
A Yes, I did.
Q And do you record that she dealt with it in her report the issue of whether Munchausen’s was present or not in your case?
A Yes, that is right.
Q And do you record – and for the benefit of the transcript this is paragraph 38 of her report –she said that:
“However, in my experience, the features of this case do not match those of Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy”
A Yes, I remember that.
Q Do you remember her saying that she had not seen the case of Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy –
“… where the mother induced accidents and I cannot find one in the literature.”
A Yes, I remember that too.
Q And do you remember her saying it would be almost impossible for children of the age of your oldest child and your youngest child to be injured by a parent without discrepancies in the accounts arising?
A Yes. I remember that.
Q You also record that she said that it would be not possible for a parent to induce a child to hang himself?
A I remember that too.
Q And you recall that she said:
“I do not believe she could hang himself unless he was rendered unconscious first and the time scale makes that unlikely.”
A Yes. I remember.
Q And did she go on to say:
“In any case, this would be homicide and not MSBP?
A Yes.
Q And did she go on from your recollection to say:
“Mother herself has attended her GP an unusual number of times and has been presented by her own parents frequently. However the conditions for which she has been treated are common ones, and her pattern is not necessarily abnormal.”
A Yes.
Q And do you record that Dr Black concluded:
“In my opinion this is not a case of MSBP or factitious illness.”
A Yes. I remember that one too.
Q You were asked about the presence of Francine Salem at the interview and whether you objected or not. Did you know whether you had a right to object to the social worker being present?
A No, I was not aware that I could object.
Q If it is suggested to you that she said to you words to the effect, “I’m here just as you had a social worker at Dr Black’s interview” ---
A She did not say that.
Q If she had said that, can I ask this, would you have told her that there was no social worker at Dr Black’s?
A I would have said that, yes.
Q You were asked about the question of smirking, which is a word that you are recorded to have used in relation to Ms Salem. How would you use the word smirking? Is it a good thing to smirk or a bad thing to smirk?
A I would say in those circumstances it as a bad thing to smirk.
Q Was she smirking in the course of your interview with Professor Southall?
A Yes.
Q You were asked about the notes of Francine Salem that were put to you. You indicated that the words may be accurate. Do these notes reflect the tone or the manner in which this interview was put or was carried out?
A No, certainly not.
Q You were asked about scenarios. Perhaps listen to this question carefully. Did Professor Southall give you an open opportunity to answer the question about murder or did he suggest the question about murder and the manner to you?
A He suggested it to me, that that was how I killed my eldest son.
Q Do you have in front of you the Francine Salem notes of this meeting?
A I do, yes.
Q Do you remember being asked about the third page, the bottom paragraph, by
Mr Coonan, who is Dr Southall’s barrister?
A Sorry, which paragraph?
Q It is the bottom paragraph on the third page, which starts that you
“…initially declined to talk to Professor Southall about how the belt was tied around [his] neck.”
A Yes.
Q Can I ask you this? Were you taken through this statement at any time by your solicitor?
A Not that I can remember, no.
Q Were you asked at any time by your solicitor to make notes about this statement?
A Yes, I was.
Q Did you make any notes about this statement shortly after you received it?
A Yes, I did. I made some alterations.
Q Did you write those notes and alterations on the document itself?
A Yes, I did.
Q Is the document that you are looking at at the moment one which has got handwriting written all over it?
A No.
Q Could you look at this? I am not asking the panel to look at it for the moment. It is an adjustment. Could you look at your aa tab?
A Yes.
Q Does that have handwriting written on it?
A Yes, it does.
Q Whose handwriting is that?
A It is mine.
Q How soon after you got this document did you put that handwriting on it?
A Shortly after I received it.
Q Were the comments that you wrote on true to the best of your knowledge and belief?
A Yes, they are.
Q Could I ask the panel, please, to insert in their panel bundles the section (aa) under 2, as another section in their bundles? It may be that you should possibly place it by where you have got the existing one that you are looking at, at tab (gg) at page 23.
(Document circulated) Could we look, please, at the third page, which has rather a lot of handwriting at the bottom of it? Do you see that?
A Yes, I do.
Q I think you told us earlier that this is in your handwriting?
A Yes, it is.
Q You see the section that says, three lines of the typescript,
“Professor Southall told [you] that he felt that this was a crucial piece of information that was needed. [You] did tell Professor Southall as [you] felt [you] wanted to prove your innocence that [you] could do this through explaining how the belt was tied.”
Did you write:
“Forced to tell them. Proff Southall said that a child protection case took preference over a criminal one, and if I was not prepared to tell him then it must be I had something to hide!”
Is that how the conversation went?
A Yes, it was.
Q “…and because there was no toxicology report done on [my eldest son] and that [my eldest son] had been cremated, it was a vital piece of evidence that could prove that
I did not murder [my eldest son].”
Is that what it said?
A Yes, that is correct.
Q Did you say:
“…that I was given the wrong advice by my solicitor to stay quiet.”
Is that what he suggested to you?
A That is what he suggested, yes.
Q You go on to say:
“He accused me of murdering [my eldest son]. Proff Southall said it was a crucial piece of evidence.”
Is that what you wrote?
A Yes, that is what I wrote.
Q Is that right?
A Yes.
Q That you were accused by him of murdering your eldest child?
A Yes.
Q Do you remember now the context in which toxicology came up?
A Yes, I do.
Q Can you help the panel as to that?
A Yes. When Professor Southall was asking about my job description and if I had access to medication and if I had seen any injections, he put it to me that I actually stole the drugs from my work, injected some medication into my eldest son and waited until he went unconscious, hung him up and then left him until he was dead and then I rang the ambulance.
Q How, in that context, did the question of a toxicology report come in?
A Because there was a needle mark on my son’s arm. It came out in the inquest.
Q How did Professor Southall bring it up?
A He asked me if I had any access to injections or medications.
Q Was it you or he who mentioned the words about no toxicology report?
A He did. I did not know there was not one.
Q It has been suggested to you that you have exaggerated your account to the panel about how Professor Southall conducted this interview. What do you say about that?
A I know exactly the way he conducted himself; it is exactly the way I said it.
Q It was suggested to you that he did not accuse you of murdering your eldest child. What do you say about that?
A He did accuse me of murdering my eldest child.
MR TYSON: Thank you. Just wait there a moment. Those are the questions from me. You may be asked some questions from the panel, or you may be asked by somebody else.
MR COONAN: Madam, may I just be permitted to raise one matter in relation to a document which I have just been supplied with? It arises out of the first question put by Mr Tyson in re-examination. I can show Mr Tyson the document.
MR TYSON: There is an issue about this.
THE CHAIRMAN: Are you content to resolve this matter?
MR TYSON: I am content to look at the document to see what he wants to put.
(Pause for the document shown to Mr Tyson)
Subject to the advice of your Legal Assessor, in my submission it is impermissible for my learned friend to put this document now to this witness, though I accept that he could have put it to the witness during cross-examination. We all regret things when we sit down and think, “Gosh, I should have asked that question or that question”. In my submission, my learned friend should have put it in his cross-examination and he did not and it is too late now. I am quite happy that the document be shown to the learned Legal Assessor. I hope that he will agree with me on my analysis. (Document shown to the Legal Assessor)
THE CHAIRMAN: I will ask the Legal Assessor for his view.
MR COONAN: Could I reply? A number of questions were asked of the witness. Perhaps she should in effect leave the court while this issue is discussed?
THE CHAIRMAN: Mrs M, would you be kind enough to wait there for a moment while this legal matter is resolved? We hope it will very short but what we are going to do effectively is make it so that you cannot hear what is being said. If you were here in person, we would ask you to leave while this is discussed. We are going to make it so that you cannot hear but please do not go away. There will be a few more questions yet. I am sorry about this.
A OK, thank you.
(The witness’s microphone was turned off)
MR COONAN: Madam, you may remember that I asked a number of simple questions about the witness’ contact with a woman called Penny Mellor. She told you that the contact had been minimal but that she accepted that there had been contact. At that stage, I was content to leave the matter because I had established, for my purposes, that there had been contact. The relevance of that may be seen later.
My learned friend took the matter a stage further in re-examination and he elicited from this witness that, in a letter to the GMC of 15 March 2002, she was saying she wanted nothing to do with Penny Mellor. I do not want to prejudice the situation in any way but I have been supplied with a document from files held by the other side which my learned friend is aware of for which ---
MR TYSON: Not by FFW; I have never seen it before.
MR COONAN: From the Trust. It is a document which deals directly, in our submission, with the piece of evidence elicited in re-examination for the first time that this witness wanted nothing to do with Penny Mellor. I said that in the interests of you carrying out due inquiry, as you are obliged to do, you should receive this document, which I anticipate this witness will identify as being signed by her and dated in the year 2000, which goes to the precise piece of evidence which she gave in answer to Mr Tyson’s questions. I could not anticipate that Mr Tyson was going to ask that question. It has emerged, so it is right that you should receive the best possible evidence in order to deal with matters not merely of credibility, but also of looking at the complete horizon of the evidence in this case.
Madam, I say that this is firstly relevant. It would have been relevant if it had been introduced earlier and it is relevant now. It is a matter which in my submission I should be entitled to ask about. Mr Tyson can re-examine further – this is a common approach adopted in these cases – and indeed you can ask about it. I do not mind who does it, but it ought to be in evidence. That is the way I put it.
MR TYSON: Madam, my learned friend directly asked questions of this witness about
Ms Mellor and asked direct questions of this witness about her contact with Ms Mellor. He could at that point, had he so chosen, in order to make good his claims, put in the document which my learned friend now wishes to put in. He chose not to. I, properly in my submission, asked questions arising out of this witness’s involvement with Penny Mellor. It appears that my learned friend is unhappy with the answer which I elicited and now wants to have a second go at cross-examining this witness.
In my respectful submission, the rules, unless bent in an unusual way, under rule 50 do not permit a second bout of cross-examination after re-examination. My learned friend had ample opportunity to put this document to the witness. He chose – and he is an experienced advocate – not to put the document to the witness. He now wishes to have a second and,
I would say, wholly impermissible bite at the cherry by having another go at cross-examining this witness. To say that it is a wholly new matter arising out of my re-examination is not correct in my submission. It cannot be a wholly new matter, because he was the one who raised the involvement of this witness with Penny Mellor and I dealt with it by producing the document showing my client’s views in 2002 about this woman. That is the beginning, the end and the middle of it. He cannot have another bash.
MR COONAN: My learned friend highly overstates the position in terms of the procedure which is adopted in these proceedings and indeed in criminal courts up and down the land. There are many, many cases where an advocate will even say – I do not say that is the case in this case – “I forgot to put something in cross-examination” and the general view of the judge is that that is allowed, provided the opposition has an opportunity to deal with it. I am not suggesting Mr Tyson should not have an opportunity to deal with it. Of course he should.
Secondly, I am not proposing to repeat my cross-examination. I simply wish him to adduce the document and get the witness to identify it. The document speaks for itself. I will ask two questions and sit down.
THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. I think the Panel should now take some advice from the Legal Assessor about this matter.
MR TYSON: I have to say, although I do not want to say it, that in your dual role as both judge and jury in order to rule on this matter properly, you have to see the document. It is unfortunate, but those are the rules. It is not a matter where the Legal Assessor can keep it to himself. It is because of your particular role as a sort of hybrid judge and jury, even though you are heavily reliant on the advice of your Legal Assessor, it is you who have to make the legal determination on this and you have to see the document in order to make that determination.
THE CHAIRMAN: It is normal, if the Panel is being asked to receive evidence which is disputed in some way, for legal advice to be given before that document is received. If the legal advice is that we should see the document before we make a decision on whether to admit it, then so be it. I think at this stage it would be helpful to the Panel to get the Legal Assessor’s input on this matter.
MR TYSON: Of course, I abide by your ruling.
THE LEGAL ASSESSOR: Madam, as has been said, the rules under which you operate for the purpose of this hearing prescribe the order of questioning of witnesses. However, you will be aware of course of the provisions of your rule 50:
“The …Committee may receive oral, documentary or other evidence of any fact or matter which appears to them relevant to the inquiry into the case before them.”
That section of the rule really points to the underlying task of this Panel, which is to ensure that justice is done and that relevant evidence is before it. Of course, at any stage it is open to the Panel to call for evidence of its own motion.
Mr Tyson has perfectly fairly said that had this document been adduced perhaps at an earlier stage, in other words, during the course of Mr Coonan’s cross-examination, he could not possibly have objected to its production, but he takes the point that the rules are the rules and he cannot have two bites of the cherry, as he has put it.
So far as the document is concerned, you probably have gleaned from the observations which have been made the thrust of the document, albeit not the detail. It is urged upon you by
Mr Coonan that the document itself is relevant to the topic concerning Ms Mellor and the witness’ involvement. I have had the opportunity of seeing the document and, as to the qualifying observation by Mr Tyson that you should see it first, in the light of the fact that you have had an indication of its overall nature, I would advise you that in the circumstances it is unnecessary for you to see it before considering the advice which I give you and also of course the submissions made by counsel.
My advice to you is that you should look to rule 50, you should have well in mind the underlying need to ensure that justice is done and that the relevant evidence is before you. In that regard, my advice to you, bearing these matters in mind, is that you would find this document would indeed, subject of course to comment and your own interpretation of it, be helpful as a piece of evidence which may appear to you to be relevant to the inquiry.
THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. In view of the Legal Assessor’s advice to the Panel, do you wish to make any further comments, Mr Tyson?
MR TYSON: I have heard the advice. I do not agree with it, but that is not my role at this stage. You are bound by the Legal Assessor’s advice, not my observations on it.
THE CHAIRMAN: Mr Coonan?
MR COONAN: Thank you for the invitation, madam. For what it is worth, I agree with the advice.
THE CHAIRMAN: If there is still no agreement on this matter, then the Panel has no option but to go into camera and determine how it should proceed. I am acutely aware of the time in Adelaide and the position of the witness.
MR TYSON: Madam, I am caught between making an issue of this. If the Panel has to retire and have a written determination and whatever, we are talking about in my submission even on the simplest point 45 minutes. I am conscious of the fact that it is 11.30 p.m. in Adelaide. The issue is not so important in my respectful submission that I need to pursue it in light of the time in Adelaide and in light of the welfare of my client. I am content that the document can be put to the witness.
THE CHAIRMAN: That matter is therefore resolved. Thank you. We need to bring Mrs M back now and the document can be put to her.
(The video link was re-established)
THE CHAIRMAN: (To the witness) Perhaps I could explain what is now going to happen, Mrs M. We apologise for having had to ask you to leave the room, as it were, but the matter of legal dispute has now been resolved. The outcome of that is that a document which was not put to you during Mr Coonan’s cross-examination is now going to be raised. Mr Coonan is going to ask you another couple of questions and then after that, Mr Tyson will have the opportunity to ask you questions arising from that. Mr Coonan?
Further cross-examined by MR COONAN
Q Mrs M, could you just help me, please, about one matter which was touched upon both by myself towards the end of my questions of you? It was also touched on again by
Mr Tyson when he began to ask you some further questions. It concerns Ms Mellor. You told the Panel I think when I was asking you some questions that your contact with
Ms Mellor was correct. You said that it was limited to a telephone conversation. Mr Tyson asked you some questions and your attention was drawn to the fact that in a letter written to the General Medical Council on 15 March 2002, you – and I paraphrase – had indicated that you did not wish Penny Mellor to have anything to do with your complaint.
A Yes, that is right.
Q The matter I want to draw your attention to is this. It may be somebody will have to put this in front of the screen so that you can see it. I wonder if that can be done? (Document held in front of screen) Can you see that document, Mrs M?
A I cannot see it, no. It is all fuzzy. (After a pause) Yes, I can now.
Q Can you look at the document and see at the bottom there is a signature?
A Yes, I can see that.
Q Is that your signature?
A It is, yes.
Q You can of course look at the document through the assistance of the person holding it, but just to save your eyesight, can I just read to you what the document says? It has your home address on it, it is dated 10 January 2000, it is addressed “To whom it may concern” and says, “I …” and then your name:
“ … give permission for Penny Mellor to advocate for myself and my son.”
That is your youngest son –
“ … I also give permission for Penny Mellor to have access to any medical files or any other files relating to myself or my son.”
And you sign that letter. Is that right?
A Yes, I did.
Q Did you send that letter to the hospital Trust?
A Yes, I did.
MR COONAN: Thank you very much. That is all I wish to ask you. Madam, there are of course copies of that and I invite you to receive it. (Same distributed and marked as D1)
Further re-examined by MR TYSON
Q Mrs M, as a result of this letter, did anything happen as far as you are aware?
A No, not that I am aware.
THE CHAIRMAN: Mrs M, that matter is now dealt with, so we can now revert to where we were before, which is the time when the Panel can ask questions.
Questioned by THE PANEL
MRS LLOYD: Good evening, Mrs M. I just want to ask you a few questions for clarification purposes of evidence we have already heard or seen. Firstly, you said that your meeting or interview with Dr Black was very different from your experiences of your interview with Professor Southall.
A Yes.
Q Could you just clarify for the Panel the kind of questions and the kind of discussion that you had with Dr Black?
A She started off by interviewing my son, my youngest son, and then me and my youngest son, and then all of the family. She kept her tone very quiet. She was not aggressive in her questioning at all. She was actually very sympathetic and she gave us the opportunity to answer her questions.
Q That is very helpful. You did say at one point in your evidence, Mrs M, that there was very little focus during your interview with Dr Black about your son, M1’s, death. Is that correct?
A I am sorry, could you say that again please?
Q You did say during the course of your evidence that there was very little focus during your interview with Dr Black about your son, M1’s, death?
A Sorry, yes. She did mention it and she did ask me a few questions, but it was mainly about my youngest son and his feelings and what he had been saying to myself and how he had actually been in himself physically – just generally about my youngest son more than my eldest son. But she did ask me questions about him.
Q Is it possible just to clarify the kind of questions she asked you about your eldest son?
A She asked me how he died, if he had had any problems in school, was I aware of any problems in school, how he was at home, just general stuff about him really.
Q That is fine, thank you. Now, moving on I am just clarifying. Your eldest son died in 1996. Is that correct?
A Yes, that is correct.
Q Your interview with Professor Southall was in 1998?
A That is right, yes.
Q So two years have lapsed then between the death of your son and your interview with Professor Southall?
A Yes, that was correct.
Q Can I ask you, during the time between your son’s death and your interview with Professor Southall was there a police investigation about your son’s death?
A No, none at all.
Q Was there a post mortem?
A Yes, there was.
Q Was there an inquest?
A Yes, there was.
Q Can I also ask you whether you were ever charged with any offence in relation to your son’s death?
A Yes, nothing at all.
Q The other thing I just want to clarify with you, Mrs M, is that again during the course of your evidence you said that during the interview with Professor Southall and Francine Salem there was no focus on your youngest son, who we are calling M2.
A I think Professor Southall may have asked me one question about one incident, but nothing else. There was no other mention of my son.
Q Could we just turn to the page please in your bundle, where that report is?
A Sorry, which report?
Q Francine Salem’s report.
A Right, sorry. Okay.
Q Both in the version we have got in our bundle and the amended bundle that we have just received as (aa) there is a paragraph on our page 24 about your youngest son and it talks about your youngest son’s stools. Can you see where I mean, near the bottom of the page?
A Yes.
Q The third paragraph up from the bottom of the page.
A I have got it.
Q Just looking at that paragraph, Mrs M, it does infer that you were asked questions about your youngest son?
A Yes, there were questions about my youngest son but I can only remember the one about him … I was being asked about any accidents that he had actually had and that was only one incident. I cannot remember any of the others I am afraid.
MRS LLOYD: Thank you very much, Mrs M. I have no further questions for you.
THE WITNESS: Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN: Mr MacFarlane is a medical member of the Panel.
MR MACFARLANE: Good evening, Mrs M.
A Good evening.
Q I want to ask a couple of questions. The first one is on the same page of Francine Salem’s report and I would like you to look at the fourth paragraph down from the top which starts. “Regarding the scalding incident to …”.
A Yes, I have got it.
Q Within that paragraph are two references to a Mrs Stone.
A Yes.
Q Is that the same Mrs Stone who was M1’s teacher?
A No, it is not.
Q I thought so. It is just I thought that perhaps it was a coincidence.
A No.
Q During the evidence you told us that Dr Southall was sitting in front of you.
A Yes, and slightly to the side as well, not directly in front of me.
Q You said that Francine Salem, the social worker, sat behind you?
A She was to the side of me but slightly back from me, and I was at an angle. I was not square but I was at an angle looking across the room diagonally to Professor Southall, and Francine Salem was sort to the side of me but I could still see her.
Q So when you were talking about her facial expressions – and I have heard “smirk” being used once or twice – was she directly observable or did you have to turn to see her to see her facial expression?
A No, I could see her, yes.
Q My final question is this, and to explain, I do work as a general practitioner part-time. During the time that you had the interviews with Dr Black and Dr Southall and what-have-you I can fully understand that this was a difficult time in your life and we have heard that you have been to see your own family doctor on a number of occasions. Was your family doctor treating you for any illnesses or problems at that time?
A After my eldest son died I was taking antidepressants, but I did not take them for very long because I did not feel they were working; but I cannot remember being treated for anything else.
Q So at the time when you had the interview with Dr Southall you were not being treated with antidepressants or anything else?
A No, nothing.
MR MACFARLANE: Thank you very much indeed.
THE WITNESS: Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN: Dr Sarkar is another medical member of the Panel.
DR SARKAR: Good evening, Mrs M.
A Good evening.
Q I have got a few questions which I will ask very slowly. If you need me to repeat please feel free to do so, and I apologise in advance if those questions have been asked. I just wanted clarification. When you went to see Professor Southall, did Professor Southall explain to you why he was asked to see you?
A No, he did not at all, no. He did not explain at all.
Q Did anybody else explain to you why Professor Southall might be interested in seeing you?
A I was told that I had to go and attend a medical with Professor Southall at Stoke at a certain time on a certain day and that I would be picked up by a social worker that was not connected to the case, and that is exactly what had happened.
Q Am I correct in assuming that nobody actually, including your solicitor, explained what Professor Southall’s remit might be?
A No, that is right. Yes, you are right.
Q The next question: When you went into Professor Southall visiting rooms you found the social worker, Ms Salem. Did Professor Southall introduce you to Ms Salem?
A No, he did not.
Q Did Professor Southall explain why the social worker was there?
A No, he did not at all.
Q Did he ask your permission for Ms Salem to be present during the interview?
A No, he did not.
Q I now move on to a different kind of question. Do you know what kind of medical doctor Professor Southall is?
A I believe he is a paediatrician.
Q What kind of doctor did you think Dora Black was?
A I actually thought she was a psychologist.
Q At that point – and it is no fault on you if you did not realise at that time – did you realise that there is a difference between these two specialties?
A Yes. I did not at the time but I do now, yes.
Q Did you have any idea in your head – mind you, this investigation/care proceedings had been going on for a while – that Professor Southall and Dr Dora Black may have been asked to answer different questions in their instructions?
A Yes, I can understand that.
Q But you are telling us, the Panel, that Professor Southall did not explicitly make it clear what he was seeing you for, or what would be the basis of his report, or the confidentiality implications?
A Yes, that is right. Yes.
DR SARKAR: Thank you very much.
THE WITNESS: Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN: Mr Simanowitz is a lay member of the Panel.
MR SIMANOWITZ: Good evening, Mrs M.
A Good evening.
Q I have got a few questions but seemingly I am the last member of the Panel to ask you questions. I think you said in evidence that if you had known that Francine Salem would be at the interview you would have taken your solicitor along?
A I would have done, yes.
Q Why would you have wanted to do that?
A Francine was around from the very beginning of the case, being very persistent, which I can understand with the questioning and the reasoning. To sort this case out she needed a lot of background, but it was also the way that she asked the questions. She was very persuasive, persistent, a bit like Professor Southall’s manner, and I felt very uncomfortable in her presence. If I knew that she would actually be there then I would have taken somebody with me to also take notes or just be there to reassure me, and a spokesperson maybe; but
I was not given the opportunity to do that.
Q As far as my questions are concerned they will be on different topics because I am just moving through the evidence that you gave. The next thing I wanted to ask you was about the belt and you told the Panel that you demonstrated how it had been tied. I think at one point you said a shoelace and then at another point you said a string, and in fact in Francine Salem’s report she refers to a wire. First of all, can I clarify which it was?
A It was a piece of string.
Q A piece of string and a pencil?
A That is correct, yes.
Q Who gave you those items to demonstrate?
A Professor Southall gave me them.
Q He asked you to demonstrate with those items?
A Yes, he did. I could not explain to him, I could not explain to him how it was, so
I said I could show him.
Q Bear with me one moment. When Dr Southall said very bluntly to you, he put it to you that you had murdered your son, how did you react?
A I was stunned. I felt physically sick. I was not sick. I could not believe that somebody was calling me a murderer to my face.
Q Did you say anything?
A No, I cannot remember – I cannot recall that I did, no. I was that stunned when he actually said to me … I cannot remember that I said anything back to him, no.
Q Was that a time when you cried?
A No, that was not the time when I cried. I cried afterwards, when I finally realised what he had said to me, on the way out.
Q We have heard a lot about Munchausen’s by proxy.
A Yes.
Q At what stage did you understand what that meant?
A My solicitor told me later on, after I was taken to the police station from my home and I was advised to seek separate legal advice from my husband, and I went round and I explained what I was being accused of and she explained it to me, nobody else.
Q When was that?
A That was on the morning my youngest son was taken and the police and the social worker came to the house, the police took me down the police station and advised me to seek legal advice separate from my husband. I then went to a solicitor who explained to me what MSP was.
Q Turning now back to the interview, we have heard there was a time when you cried for some two or three minutes. Did either Dr Southall or Francine Salem try to comfort you in any way?
A No, they did not, not at all.
Q They did not offer you a tissue or anything like that?
A No, nothing. No.
Q My final question is really by clarification. I may have missed something. I think you said that you did not make a complaint to your solicitor about the conduct of Dr Southall at the interview. Is that right?
A Yes, that is correct, yes. I did go back and tell her what happened at the interview.
I suppose it was my fault because I automatically thought she would put a complaint in, so maybe that was a misunderstanding on my behalf.
Q I am sorry, I think I am misunderstanding. You actually did, you told your solicitor about the way he had ---?
A Yes.
Q And you told your solicitor that you were not happy about that?
A Yes, she knew I was not happy about it, yes.
MR SIMANOWITZ: Thank you.
THE WITNESS: Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN: I am the last person to go as Chairman, Mrs M, so I do still have a couple of outstanding questions, if I may. I am returning to the notes of the meeting that were made by Francine Salem. In your evidence, when challenged about that you agreed that the notes were accurate insofar as they went. When asked about the tone you said that it did not reflect the tone of the meeting. What would you say about how complete these notes are? Does it record everything that happened?
A No, it does not. I do not feel that it does. I think some things have been omitted, but I was not able to say that. That is what I feel.
Q You feel that some things were omitted?
A I do not feel the way that they are written, I do not feel that that is an accurate picture of actually what happened in the interview.
Q So are you saying that if you go through it fact by fact, as written, each sentence or paragraph is not wrong, but it is when you take it all together?
A Yes. It is not wrong. Yes, I am sorry. It is not wrong. It is just the way…. Yes. As you have said it, that is how I agree with it.
Q I do not really want to put words in your mouth but I am just trying to understand ---?
A No.
Q ---what you mean?
A Yes.
Q So when challenged you would say, “I cannot pick on something that is wrong,” but when you take it altogether you feel it is not a complete account. Is that ?
A That is right, yes.
Q How long was the interview altogether? Do you remember how long you were in the room?
A It has to be around two hours.
Q Two hours? Right.
A Yes.
Q And somebody was talking throughout that time, was there?
A Yes.
Q Were there any long gaps of silence?
A There were no breaks, no gaps or nothing.
Q So a verbatim record would have been quite long?
A Yes, it would have been.
Q Thank you very much on that one. One last question. That is on that document, at the bottom of page 25, a paragraph which you have been asked about quite a bit and I think on your own annotated copy we saw that you had quite a bit to say about this paragraph. The bit I would like you to clarify is --- Have you found it again?
A I have found it, yes. Sorry.
Q
“Mrs M said that she would be pleased to talk about it if it cleared her name…”.
How did that actually arise, because what made you need to think about it? What suggestion was there that made you need to clear your name?
A All the way through the interview with Professor Southall, he kept saying, after he accused me of murdering my son, he said, “You’ve got to be guilty.” All the evidence started off with, I would not tell him how the belt was tied. That is when I got all upset and he said, “You’ve got to tell me. It is an important piece. I need to know.” And that is when he kept asking me and asking me and asking me, and in the end said, “I’ll show you.” That is when in fact it all came out.
Q Had anything happened before this interview with Dr Southall that might have suggested that your name needed clearing of something?
A No, not that I am aware of. No. I did not even know Professor Southall before this case.
Q So I think what I am getting at was how this expression to clear your name had cropped up, but there was nothing ---
A Sorry?
Q There was nothing you knew about before you went into this interview that might have suggested to somebody that you needed to clear your name?
A There was a mention of my eldest son’s death being an open verdict, and also I am not sure when it was, whether it was before the interview or shortly after, I cannot remember, but Professor Southall asked the police to open the open verdict. That is when I had to go down to the police station. I am presuming that is how it came about because it was an open verdict. He did ask me if it was an open verdict, and I said, “Yes it was.” He just looked quite surprised, really, when I told him. I suppose that is when I said, “I’ve got to clear my name,” and then that is when that cropped up. I am almost certain of that.
Q I think this is a bit of new information then; that Dr Southall ---
A I am sorry.
Q Are you saying that there was a question mark put over the coroner’s verdict at some point?
A The coroner recorded an open verdict and Professor Southall said that needed investigating.
Q He said that to you in this interview?
A Yes.
Q In this interview?
A Yes.
Q So was that the point at which the question that might be something you needed to clear your name?
A Yes.
Q It happened during the interview, not before?
A Yes, it did.
Q I think I have got that clear now, thank you.
A Sorry.
THE CHAIRMAN: That seems to have provoked another question from Mr Simanowitz. Those were all my questions.
MR SIMANOWITZ: It is that very thing that has provoked the question. I was looking at the version of that note, that report that you have annotated, where it says, “Mrs M said that she would be pleased to talk about it if it cleared her name,” you have written: “No, I did not. He said that.” “He said that.” Is that referring to that statement?
A Yes, it is. I did not say I would be pleased to talk about it because I found it very difficult to talk about, so Professor Southall said that, not myself.
Q So it is that bit about being pleased to talk about it that you mean, when you say, “No, I did not say that.”
A Yes.
MR SIMANOWITZ: Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN: Mrs Lloyd now has another question.
MRS LLOYD: Mrs M, as a result of the Chair’s question I wonder if I could ask you a further question?
A Yes, certainly.
Q You have just said in response to a question that was put to you that “Professor Southall asked the police to open the open verdict”. Is that correct?
A That is what the police told me when I went down the police station, yes.
Q How did that occur? How did you get to go to the police station? I just need to understand the events that have taken place here. You had the interview with Professor Southall?
A Yes.
Q Did he ask the police prior to the interview with you or after the interview with you, for the police to open ---?
A I cannot remember. I honestly do not know if it was before or after. I was just asked to attend the police station with my solicitor to answer some more questions about my son’s death, the belt in particular.
Q So that was after you had seen Professor Southall?
A I cannot remember if it was before or after. I think it was after because… I cannot remember, to be honest with you, whether it was before or after. Sorry.
Q Who asked you to attend the police station? Was it by letter from the police, or telephone call?
A My solicitor informed me that I was asked to go to the police station to answer some more questions.
Q Could you just help the Panel by advising us the sort of questions you were asked by the police?
A They specifically asked me about the belt and I did not answer them all. I did not speak to them. I did not say nothing, but that is all they asked me was questions about the belt. I think they might have only asked me one question.
Q As a result of that interview with the police were you asked to see the police again?
A No.
Q Were you told whether any further action would be taken?
A No, there was no further action to be taken. No.
MRS LLOYD: Thank you very much, Mrs M.
THE CHAIRMAN: Those are all the questions from the Panel and we are very near the end, but it sometimes happens that either counsel may have questions that arise from the Panel’s questions, and they are entitled to ask them in the final round. Does either counsel have further questions for Mrs M? Mr Tyson has risen.
Further examined by MR TYSON
Q In relation to the questions you were asked just now by Mrs Lloyd there may be a document in your bundle – and I underline that. Would you look at (jj) in your bundle, please.
THE CHAIRMAN: I do not think we have it.
MR TYSON: I am not saying that you had it. I am asking this witness whether it is in her bundle, (jj). Is there a section (jj) in your bundle?
A Yes, I have the letter.
Q Is that a letter from the West Mercia Constabulary?
A Yes, it is.
Q And is it a letter addressed to your solicitors dated 3 December 1998?
A Yes.
Q And does it indicate that the police have re-investigated the matter?
A That is correct, yes.
Q Does it says:
“The review has only recently been completed and has not revealed anything to suggest the original verdict at the coroner’s court was not correct.”
A That is right.
MR TYSON: And if you want to see that letter I can have it available for the Panel. I have no further questions for my client.
THE CHAIRMAN: Mr Coonan?
Further cross-examined by MR COONAN
Q Madam, I have two very, very short matters. Mrs M, as you heard me say, two short matters. You were being asked some questions by Mrs Lloyd about the sequence of events in relation to police investigations. Can I just attempt to clarify, subject to further evidence, these matters. Do you agree that you went to see the police, and you were asked questions about the belt before you saw Dr Southall?
A Sorry. Can you say that again, please?
Q Do you agree that you went to see the police who asked you some questions about the belt and that that was before you saw Dr Southall?
A As I said before, I cannot remember if I went before or after the meeting with Professor Southall.
Q What is the basis for you asserting, as you did, that it was Dr Southall who asked the police to reopen the investigation?
A The police said so.
Q The police said that. Right. I just want to clarify. That was not Dr Southall who said it?
A No, no. The police told me that.
Q And after you had seen Dr Southall, so we again have it absolutely clear, you did not see the police again?
A No.
Q The answer is no. The second matter is this. You said that the whole of this interview took two hours?
A Yes. Sorry, yes.
Q Just stand back and have a think about it. Is it really two hours? Or was it more like one hour, plus or minus a bit either side?
A No, it was longer than an hour.
Q I am not tying myself to an hour exactly, you understand, but there is a difference between one hour and two hours?
A I understand that, yes. I believe it was two hours.
MR COONAN: All right. Thank you. Thank you, madam.
THE CHAIRMAN: Mrs M, that finally completes all the questions we have from your. I am able to release you from your oath. Thank you very much for giving your evidence.
THE WITNESS: Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN: Good night.
THE WITNESS: Thank you, goodnight.
(The witness withdrew)
(The video link was terminated)
MR TYSON: Madam, we are in a slightly bizarre situation about my opening, but I ask your indulgence for one other matter. I have a very short witness who is a medical witness, who is the psychiatrist who saw this lady immediately after the interview that we just heard described. She has enormous clinical difficulties being here at any time other than this afternoon. She would just be a short witness because all she can do, as it were, is read her note, in effect, of this matter. I would ask that you hear her when we resume after lunch for about an hour, and then we discuss at that time whether I carry on with my opening or whether, because we have all had a long day, we start again tomorrow morning.
THE CHAIRMAN: On that last matter, it had already been my view that if it was possible, we should finish earlier rather than later today, given the late sitting last night and the long morning. I take it generally there is agreement that this witness should be ---
MR TYSON: I am looking at my learned friend.
MR COONAN: Mr Tyson was kind enough to indicate that he had difficulties with his next witness in terms of her availability. I do not want to cause any difficulties. Strictly speaking, we would have to wait until he has finished his opening, but I do not want to cause problems. The Panel clearly wants to get on with this, and so do we. I am prepared to consent that we take this irregularly out of order. It seems sometimes that irregularity is built into the system, but there it is. So I am content. Equally by that stage I, for one, might be flagging. I confess that straight away. So my learned friend’s latter suggestion about rising after that, I would embrace his idea.
THE CHAIRMAN: Will it be satisfactory if we do take a proper break now, and have your witness in about one hour’s time – say quarter to three.
MR TYSON: Or three o’clock. Whatever you want.
MR COONAN: I would prefer three o’clock.
THE CHAIRMAN: Three o’clock it is. We will break now until then.
(Luncheon adjournment)
ALISON CORFIELD, Affirmed
Examined by MR TYSON
THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you for coming to give evidence, Dr Corfield.
(Introduction)
MR TYSON: Could you give the panel your full name?
A Dr Alison Corfield.
Q What is your professional address?
A Cams, Bourne House, Radbrook College Complex, Radbrook College Road, Shrewsbury.
Q Are you a consultant in child and adolescent psychiatry?
A I am.
Q Do you work for a PCT in or near the town that you have just mentioned?
A I am employed by Telford and Wrekin PCT but I work entirely within Shropshire.
Q Madam, perhaps I could mention this to you and the panel and to the witness. I have had permission from my learned friend to lead on a lot of the introductory evidence of this witness. (To the witness) Prior to November 2000, were you registered with the GMC as
Dr Alison Solomon?
A I was.
Q Have you since re-married and changed your name and registration to Dr Corfield.
A I have.
Q In preparing the statement that you did for these proceedings, did you have an opportunity of looking at your files in respect of the M family?
A Yes.
Q Was the youngest child, who we know as M1 or the youngest child, with his parents and did they attend the Child and Family Service where you saw them on a number of occasions?
A They did.
Q Were you first referred the youngest child by his head teacher following the death of his older brother?
A Yes.
Q Did you first meet with the youngest child and his mother in August 1996? We have heard that the death of the eldest child was in June 1996. Did they remain seeing you and your colleagues until March 1997 when they were discharged?
A Yes.
Q Were they told that they could come back to you at any time if they wanted?
A They were.
Q So the discharge was in March 1997. Was your next contact with the family in May 1997?
A Yes, that was my colleague Brian Turner, who was the clinical social worker and he had contact with them at that point.
Q Was it the mother who made contact with your colleague Mr Turner on that occasion?
A Yes.
Q Was a history given by the mother that the youngest child had become withdrawn and that there were further problems at school?
A Yes, it was.
Q Did he offer to see the mother and the youngest child in that May but on the day of the appointment was that appointment cancelled?
A Yes.
Q Was that due to the fact that the youngest child did not want to attend?
A Yes, that was the case, and his mother was encouraged to come on her own if she wished to, but she did not take that up.
Q Was there a re-referral in October 1997 made by the GP?
A There was.
Q Was the history given in October of 1997 that the youngest child was very withdrawn and there had been increasing tensions at school?
A It was.
Q Following that October 1997 referral, did you see the youngest child on two occasions with his mother?
A I did.
Q I believe that was on 9 and 23 December?
A Yes.
Q In the middle of January 1998, were you informed that social services were making inquiries under a section of the Children Act in relation to this child?
A Yes.
Q Did you become involved in those inquires to the extent that you attended two strategy meetings?
A I did.
Q I want to point those to you. Bundle 1 is in front of you. I ask you to look under section 1, at a tab marked “o”.
A I have that.
Q The panel has seen this document already but it is a strategy meeting held by the local authority, as we see on Monday 26 January. We look amongst the attenders and we see you in your former name three up from the bottom?
A Yes.
Q As I understand it, that was a sort of pooling of information session, if I can put it this way?
A It was.
Q If you go to page 8 within that document, do we see in the first paragraph that you had learned at that meeting that Dr Southall had suggested that there were concerns for the youngest child and the panel question was: if the child was removed, would his situation improve or worsen. Do you see that?
A Yes.
Q We see on the next line that you offered to speak to Professor Southall about the case?
A Obviously that was recorded. I did not do so.
Q That is the question I was going to ask. We note in the recommendation that Professor Southall’s views about the matter were going to be, as it were, formally sought?
A Yes.
Q Then a few days later was there another strategy meeting, which we see under tab “r”. We can see that you attended that. Your name is four up from the bottom.
A Yes.
Q The panel has been taken to this document. It is clear that in the course of it certain advice had been obtained from Professor Southall, amongst others, and I think you were informed at that strategy meeting that an emergency protection order had been obtained for the child, the youngest child?
A Yes.
Q Then we have heard that the EPO was made and that subsequently the local authority applied for an interim care order?
A Yes, they did.
Q Did you produce a number of reports that were considered at the hearing for the interim care order?
A I did.
Q Did you, in March 1998, attend the hearing and give evidence at the interim care order application?
A I did.
MR TYSON: I have shown my learned friend the passages out of the judgment which in due course will come in front of the panel concerning your attendance at that. For the benefit if the transcript, I am going to take the witness to page 8F. You do not have that.
MR COONAN: I do not mind the witness seeing that. We have copied it. It may be that not all the pages have been photocopied on the back.
MR TYSON: It might be helpful if everybody were to have that. I only need the judgment.
(C4 marked and circulated)
MR TYSON: I am grateful to my learned friend’s legal team for providing the copies.
(To the witness) Dr Corfield, could you look at page 8. We can see how you were rather dramatically introduced into the proceedings. Two lines about 8F the judge says:
“I realised from the start of this hearing that there was to be no oral evidence from any medically, and in particular any psychiatrically, qualified person. It was in these circumstances that I suggested that Dr Solomon should be called. Dr Solomon is a consultant child psychiatrist to whom [the youngest child] was referred by his GP within a month of the [eldest child’s] death and with whom he has had contact on and off since that time. Her report, written jointly with Mr Brian Turner, they both being of the Child and Family Service, appears at the end of the bundle at page 632.
Dr Solomon is the only psychiatrically-qualified expert who has seen [the youngest child] and I felt that she could assist the court in this application.
When the parties were faced with my strong view that she should be called it was suggested that I should call her. I did so. I am grateful to her for having attended court at shot notice and some inconvenience and I will draw on her evidence in the course of this judgment.”
Does that remind you?
A I do remember that
Q Going on to page 21F, may I read this part of the judgment and see if you recall this.
“Here I return to the evidence of Dr Solomon. Her view is that the case does need further investigation. In her words, it has reached a stage where it is important to look at a number of issues. She has balanced on one hand the need for that investigation to take place with, on the other, [the youngest child’s] interest while it does so. She is, in my judgment, in the best position of anyone who has participated in this case to do so, having both the knowledge of the parties involved and the psychiatric qualification to do so. Her firm view is that [the youngest child] should be at home with his family while investigations take place.”
Was that your firm view at the time?
A Yes, it was.
Q Was that not the view of the local authority?
A I believe it was not.
Q Was it not the view of the guardian?
A I have looked through the notes and I understand also it was not the view of the guardian.
Q The learned judge went on to say:
“She says that he looks to his parents as his main support and that in any event living away from them will not make a difference to what he will say about them. She feels that he will better be able to cope with enquiries in the family environment and has found it quite difficult to cope with it in the foster setting. She has actually seen [the youngest child] since he has been in the foster home, the only qualified psychiatrist, so far as I know, to do so, and she reports him telling her that he feels confused and is commenting about people asking him lots of questions. I say in passing that people have now had five weeks in which to do this.”
The judge made a finding of your view:
“I find that evidence compelling. I do not agree with the criticisms which have been levelled at Dr Solomon and about the basis on which she holds her view. I accept her evidence about this.”
A Yes, I remember that.
Q Just go on to page 23G, and I think we have been told from an earlier witness that
Mrs Inwood was the guardian. Do you recall that?
A I recall that.
Q Picking it up at 23G:
“I have to say that on the basis of their respective qualifications and knowledge of [the youngest child] I prefer the opinion of Dr Solomon on this point. I mean no disrespect at all to Mrs Inwood by that but I cannot accept both their opinions, I have to choose between them, and for the reasons that I have given I prefer the opinion of Dr Solomon. If I may say so, she was an impressive and thoroughly balanced witness with whom I would find it very difficult, particularly in the absence of other psychiatric oral evidence, to disagree on this point.”
A Yes.
Q Do you recall that tribute being given by the learned judge? At the end of the day, just to see what the judge in fact found for the sake of the record, could you pick it up at 26F. You will see that the learned judge says:
“I have considered the range of powers which the court has, and there has been discussion about both residence and supervision orders. Neither is felt necessary by any party if I do not make a care order. It must be plain to everyone concerned by now that I do not feel that [the youngest child’s] interests will be served by the making of an interim care order. His best interests, in my judgment, with all respect to those who disagree, to whose opinions I have given the closest scrutiny, are for him to return to live with his parents and accordingly this application is refused.”
A Yes.
Q After that evidence in March, did you see the child or his parents again?
A I did see them in the April.
Q Would you have made notes of any contact you had with the child?
A I would have made notes at the time, yes.
Q Again, could you look at bundle 1 which is in front of you, please, and go to section EE? I wonder if you could clear up one tiny point. We see in the contact record on the front page, the date of 28 April and we see over the page on your clinical note of that consultation, 27 April. The Panel has heard evidence that the mother saw Professor Southall on 27 April. With that information in mind, do you have any view as to what the date was that you saw the mother? Was it on the day she saw Professor Southall or the day after?
A I am certain it was the day after, on 28 April.
Q We see again on the contact record that the duration of the meeting was 60 minutes.
A Yes.
Q And that you saw both parents and the youngest child.
A I did.
Q Before we go into the notes of this meeting, do you have an independent recollection of this family at all?
A I do, because it was a very exceptional case and, even without the involvement in these proceedings and my knowledge of those over the past year, I have always remembered the case, because it was complex and obviously quite exceptional in its content and also in the process of what happened during it.
Q The manuscript note which we see in EE, is this in your handwriting?
A It is.
Q Again, following up questions I have just asked you, you have had an opportunity, have you, of looking at this note fairly recently?
A I have.
Q Apart from this note, do you have much independent recollection of this particular consultation?
A I do have a picture in my mind of Mrs M talking to me about it.
Q We will see – and thank you for having reasonable clinical handwriting – that you first deal with how the youngest child was and that he had been telling his mother about drawing.
A Yes. I had seen him I think previously in April and at work at that time we had a workbook about bereavement and so I had been doing some work with him.
Q You indicated that he was sleeping okay in his own bedroom, that he had a good appetite and there had been no further remarks about going to kill himself.
A Yes.
Q Had he made any remarks to you about that at any time that you can recall?
A I think whenever I had asked him directly, he had said that was something he would not do. I think from looking at my notes, that when he spoke, he had had some individual sessions with Mr Turner when he spoke to him and he would acknowledge that was what he had said. He did not spontaneously say it to us.
Q You record that he had been going out to play and the parents thought that he had been a lot more cheerful since he saw Dave Gillett. Can you help us as to who Dave Gillett was?
A He was an educational psychologist working with the local authority who had done an assessment on him earlier that term. He had found that, although of average ability, he did have some very definite, specific learning difficulties of a dyslexic type.
Q It appears that Dave Gillett had told him that he was clever. Is my reading of that correct?
A Yes. I think what his parents had observed about that was that it had given him a very positive boost; that he had been discouraged about his work at school.
Q But had been encouraged, it appears, by Mr Gillett. Is that right?
A Yes.
Q Do I see a line which says, “Parents” – something?
A Yes. “Parents positive about that.”
Q Then:
“[Youngest child] much happier at school. Said he enjoyed it yesterday.”
Then there is a discussion about arguments between the parents in the past. Is this something you would have brought up, Dr Corfield?
A Yes, I would have done, because I wanted to explore the effect on the boy of knowing the difficulties there had been between his parents over the years. So that was really a recurring theme in the ongoing appointments and discussions.
Q When it says, “Said this should never have happened”, is that the advice which you were giving?
A No. I would interpret that as what his parents said.
Q Similarly, “Didn’t argue in front of the children”?
A That is what they said on that occasion.
Q Do you go on to record, “[M2] said he hadn’t head things that upset him.”
A Yes, I recorded that.
Q And, “He and [M1] went outside or upstairs.”
A Yes.
Q Then there is a reference to a booklet. I do not need that we need to go into that in any great detail. “All joined in. See sheets.” Is that some work you were doing with the family?
A I think that was the same workbook I mentioned before.
Q Is that “F” for father?
A Yes.
Q “not sort counselling”.
A Yes. Sorry I spelled it wrong!
Q “Fear of losing job.” Then we have a reference to a person by the name of Dora Black. Can you assist the Panel as to how that reference and the discussion in the next two lines came up?
A Yes. Dora Black was a child and adolescent psychiatrist. One of her areas of specialism was around traumatic bereavement and also Munchausen’s by proxy and she was preparing a report as an expert in the same proceedings. I think she was instructed by all parties in the end to do that.
Q By the time they saw you in April, had the family been to see Dr Black?
A They had.
Q Do you there record, as it were, the family view of how that had gone?
A I think they felt – well, they said they had felt it was a reasonable experience.
Q Then there is a mention of Professor Southall. Can you assist the Panel as to how that name came to be discussed at that consultation?
A I am not certain whether I introduced it or perhaps Mrs M introduced it, but I think it was in the context of discussion about the reports which were being prepared for the proceedings.
Q You have recorded that Mrs M went to see him yesterday.
A Yes.
Q That Mr M was not there because of his job.
A Yes.
Q And that Mrs M had been seen on her own.
A Yes.
Q Could you carry on, please, in your own words as to how the note goes?
A There was a social worker present during the interview called Francine Salem, who was the social worker who was involved in the case in Shropshire. Mrs M told me that she found the interview very upsetting and I think I put it in her own words, “offensive”. She elaborated on that by giving me an idea of some of the questions that she told me Professor Southall had asked her, things that he had talked about. I put in quotation marks, because
I believed that this is what she said and why I recorded it like that, that “they had not done toxicology”, meaning on her eldest son’s body, and that it was “quite possible that [she] had drugged him first”. She told me that she felt accused of killing the older boy and that she had been expecting the interview to focus on the youngest son and the issues around Munchausen’s by proxy, but that was not how she saw the interview proceeding.
Q Can you recall her manner when she was describing her experience with
Professor Southall?
A I do recall her. I can imagine her there. I think she was upset and she was also quite shocked and taken aback.
Q Can you recall whether she said anything about the nature of the questioning or anything like that?
A I recall that she said that a lot of the questions centred around the death of the oldest boy and they seemed to imply that she might have killed him herself, that the questions were perhaps testing that hypothesis. I recall she also told me that Professor Southall had suggested there needed to be further police investigations.
Q You used the words “testing the hypothesis”. Are those your words or your recollection of her words?
A That is my interpretation.
Q Is there anything else about that consultation in relation to what Mrs M told you about Professor Southall which you can now recall?
A I think that is the limit really of what I can say about that interview.
Q When you have recorded the words that she found it “offensive and upsetting”, were those her words or your words?
A I would say that those were my words.
Q Subsequently, did you do a further report for the court which we have under the next section, which is tab (ff)?
A I did.
Q That is a report dated, I think, 1 May?
A Yes.
Q It records that since your initial report in February you had seen the youngest child on 17 February, which we see in the third paragraph?
A Yes.
Q Then you add in the penultimate paragraph on that page that your next contact was when you were called to court and you have written the date about that?
A Yes.
Q Then you saw the father and the child, as we see in the next paragraph, on 7 April. Then going over the page, in the middle of the fourth paragraph down, the third line, do you record:
“My most recent appointment was on 28.04.98”?
A Yes.
Q That is the one that you have been telling the Panel about?
A Yes.
Q Do you record in the penultimate paragraph that:
“They told me that they had already met Dr Black”,
and that Dr Black had seen the youngest child for an individual discussion and Mrs M told you that she had seen Professor Southall and she found this interview difficult and disturbing?
A Yes.
Cross-examined by MR COONAN
Q Dr Corfield, good afternoon. As you know, I represent Dr Southall. There are just two preliminary background matters. You were asked by Mr Tyson about the case conferences.
A Yes.
Q The Panel have looked at the documentation in relation to that. I am not going to take you to them in detail. We know the first one is on 26 January and the second one was on
29 January.
A Yes.
Q You were present at both and we see from the order of personnel who else was present?
A Yes.
Q Can I just ask you this: Was Mrs M present at either or both of those two case conferences?
A No.
Q The second preliminary matter is this. Could I take you to the report that you prepared, which is at tab 1(ff) in our bundle? Do you see that?
A Yes
Q It is your report dated 1 May 1998. This was provided to the court, was it?
A It was, yes.
Q We see at the bottom paragraph on the first page a reference to you seeing the youngest with his father on 7 April 1998.
A Yes.
Q At that time his mother, Mrs M, was in hospital following a miscarriage?
A That is what I was told.
Q Do you know how long she was in hospital for?
A I do not, I am afraid.
Q Do you know when the miscarriage was?
A I think from reviewing the notes it was just prior to that date.
Q I would like your assistance, please, about a number of matters arising out of the meetings you had with Mr and Mrs M and the youngest on 28 April.
A Right.
Q We have the benefit of your notes. The notes that you have written do not purport, do they, to be a verbatim account of what each one or other person said during the course of the interview?
A No, they are not a verbatim account.
Q In effect, they go through the filter of yourself and you write down an impression. Is that fair?
A Can I look at it again?
Q Yes, please do.
A Where is it?
Q I am so sorry, you will find it at tab 1(ee).
A (After a pause) Yes, I would say that it is probably a mixture of obviously my interpretation of things that I have quoted them as saying and a few things when I have written it in quotation marks, which I would believe to be verbatim.
Q The content of the note. First of all, if I can take it in this sequence, a reference to the presence of Francine Salem being present which Mrs M did not like?
A Yes.
Q Do you recall any other aspect of that point that you recorded?
A I did not record anything further. I feel that at that time they were angry with social services.
Q Angry?
A Because he had been removed.
Q Would it be right to say that Mrs M in effect told you or gave you the strong impression that she was very unhappy that Francine Salem was there?
A I think she said that she was unhappy about it. I am not sure that she said very unhappy.
Q I use that expression, Dr Corfield. Forgive me, I am not being mischievous, but it is the phrase you used in the statement you made on 1 September 2005, which I have in front of me. Would you like to see it? I do not want you to feel as though I am being unfair.
A Okay, sure. Yes, I would like to see it. (Same handed to the witness)
Q Dr Corfield, if you would just go to the last page of the statement, is that your signature?
A It is.
Q And the date 2005?
A Yes.
Q If you would just go to paragraph 9 you will just see where I got the quotation from. Just look at the last few lines?
A Yes
Q Again, you used the expression, did you not:
“I recall Mrs M being very unhappy about Ms Salem.”
A I did, yes.
Q Again, that was 2005?
A Yes
Q We are now in 2006?
A Yes.
Q Do you think that was an accurate description in 2005 as to how she felt?
A I think it is a reasonable description. I think the notes record that she did not like the fact that she was there, and so I think it would be another way to put it, that she was very unhappy with it.
Q It may, you see, have a particular forensic significance in the context of these proceedings that I ask you about that?
A Sure, of course.
Q The next matter is that, as we see and the Panel see, you have recorded that she found the interview with Professor Southall offensive and upsetting. You told us very fairly that those were your words?
A Yes.
Q What you have done is, in effect, to translate that which she was saying to you so that you get to that description, “offensive and upsetting”?
A Yes.
Q So the picture is this, is it, that as you have recorded at the bottom of your note that Mrs M “felt”, and I emphasise that word, “felt” that she had been accused of killing the eldest child?
A Yes.
Q You said again a few minutes ago in answer to questions from Mr Tyson that she had been asked a lot of questions centred around the eldest boy that seemed to imply that she was responsible. Do you see?
A I see, yes.
Q That was your strong impression, was it, that she was saying to you that the implication of what Professor Southall was saying was, in effect, that she was responsible for his death?
A I think that was the implication as she saw it, yes.
Q You remember, do you not, she in effect saying to you, or at least this was your impression, that Professor Southall had been in effect testing or putting forward a number of hypotheses.
A I think that was my way of putting it.
Q Yes, but of course your way of putting it must have been based upon what she was saying to you?
A Yes, I recall that she gave more detail issues around the curtain rail and whether it would have held the boy’s weight and issues like that.
Q The important point is, Dr Corfield, that the way it was being put to you by her led you to think that what was being spoken about between Professor Southall and her was a series of hypotheses?
A That I thought that?
Q Yes, based upon what she was saying and how she was saying it?
A I thought she interpreted it as him saying to her “You could have killed him”, perhaps not that “You did kill him” but that “You could have killed him”, and these are other subsidiary questions around that.
Q So we have, on the one hand, your impression that she was saying to you that Dr Southall had said that there was a possibility of she being responsible. Yes?
A Yes.
Q But at no stage did she say that Dr Southall had in fact accused her of murdering this child?
A I would have to say that she did not say those words.
Q If Mrs M had said to you in terms that Dr Southall had in fact accused her of murdering her eldest son, you would have been startled, would you not?
A I would have been.
Q You would have made a note about it?
A She may well have felt that that was said to her. I was looking at it that he was testing hypotheses ---
Q That may be.
A -- in a forceful manner.
Q That may be, but just so that we are clear about it, if she had come to you and said, “Dr Corfield, Dr Southall has accused me of drugging the boy, stringing him up, letting him die, calling the ambulance” and that she was responsible for murdering the child, you would have noted it, would you not?
A I think I would.
Q But she did not say that, did she?
A No, I recorded she felt accused of killing him.
MR COONAN: Thank you very much, Dr Corfield.
Re-examined by MR TYSON
Q The evidence that we have heard from Mrs M this morning was as my learned friend put it to you, that she said that in this interview with Professor Southall, Professor Southall had in fact said those things to her, that he had accused her of drugging the boy, stringing him up, letting him die and calling the ambulance. Was there any discussion with you about those aspects of the death of the eldest boy?
A As I said just now, she did talk about Professor Southall discussing the curtain rail and whether it would have taken the weight of him. So some of those details were there in terms of the questions that she was asked, or the things that he might have said, as she related to me, anyway.
Q I think you recorded the words that she “felt accused of killing”?
A Yes.
Q And that was it. She did feel that she had been accused of killing?
A She did.
THE CHAIRMAN: Dr Corfield, at this time it is possible that members of the Panel may have some questions for you. Mr McFarlane is a medical member.
Questioned by THE PANEL
MR McFARLANE: Good afternoon. Thank you for coming. I do sometimes work part time as a general practitioner. When you noted that Mrs M felt accused of the suggestion that she had killed her eldest child, and you noted it as such, did you take the trouble to explore these issues further? This is quite a surprising thing to come out if you are taking a history from the patient.
A Yes. I did ask around that, and she told me the information that topics that had been brought up about, maybe, the only way she could have done it would have been to drug him first, and the need for the police to investigate this further.
Q Your note is obviously short.
A Yes.
Q I do not particularly want to criticise the brevity of your notes, but would it normally have been something that you perhaps would want to expand further?
A I think that that is perhaps true, yes. As I said, my feeling at that time was that I was not certain of what the instructions were to Professor Southall in providing his report, because normally there would be certain questions that an expert would be asked to answer. So I was not sure how that fitted in with his report, because I had not seen that at that time. So I think that I was kind of waiting to see what happened through the reports that were written.
Q I see. Because in your subsequent report you do not seem to have discussed this aspect at all.
A No. I think I was, I suppose, respecting the position that he was writing the court report, and the court report would be produced. Other experts who had been instructed too, and I was waiting to see what they would be saying.
Q Did you feel that this comment, that Mrs M had come out with perhaps was over-exaggerated by her and that the brevity of your note and the fact that it has not been put in your subsequent report, you were feeling that it was not of such great importance and therefore you did not want to unnecessarily draw attention to it?
A I do not think I was thinking like that, no.
MR McFARLANE: Thank you very much indeed.
THE CHAIRMAN: Mr Simanowitz is a lay member.
MR SIMANOWITZ: Good afternoon, Dr Corfield. I just want to clarify a matter of ambiguity. Could you look at the strategy meeting report. It is at tab O?
A Yes.
Q It is the last page. There is a statement there.
“Dr Solomon offered to speak to Professor Southall about the case.”
And you said, “I didn’t”.
A Yes.
Q Is it that you did not offer or you did not speak to him?
A I cannot recall. I perhaps myself remember it more that of course as I was the clinician involved with the child, I would normally say if any of the experts want to discuss with me – that is the way round I remember it, saying that if he wanted to be in touch with me.
Q But in fact you did not speak to him?
A I did not, no.
MR SIMANOWITZ: Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN: Dr Sarkar is a medical member.
DR SARKAR: Did you know at that time Professor Southall personally?
A No. I knew of his work but I never met him.
Q And you knew that he was working on this same case?
A I knew that he was instructed to provide an opinion, yes.
Q I know I am repeating what the other doctor asked you already, but in the course of interviewing a family, when a mother comes up with such a serious matter only the day before she has been interview by Professor Southall which caused her great distress, and she came out feeling, as you recall it, that she was accused of murdering her son, drugging him, etc. etc., and not repeating the point about the brevity of the note, did you at any point contemplate asking others involved in the case, like a social worker or the court, permission to speak to Professor Southall to clarify if this was the case?
A No, I did not.
Q It did not cross your mind ---
A No.
Q --- that this is indeed a very serious matter and perhaps it is fair to say it is not what doctors usually do in their work, even if they are instructed by the court?
A Yes, indeed. Yes. I did not take it any further at the time, no.
Q But it struck you as something unusual?
A It did strike me as something unusual, yes.
Q But you did not pursue the matter any more vigorously than you have told us already?
A I did not.
THE CHAIRMAN: Mrs Lloyd is a lay member.
MRS LLOYD: Good afternoon, Dr Corfield. Dr Corfield, just for clarification, your notes under (ee) seem to be clinical notes you were keeping on the family that you were having contact with. My understanding is that these are confidential notes which form part of the family medical or clinical records?
A Yes.
Q And the report that you have prepared, where you are giving your professional opinion for another purpose, you have on page 2 actually made reference to the interview that Mrs M had with Professor Southall, in that you stated in the paragraph before last that she found the interview difficult and disturbing. I just want some clarification in terms of confidentiality. The kind of detail that you might record in the clinical notes ---
A Yes.
Q --- would necessarily differ from the kind of information you would then be showing on a broader basis?
A Yes. I think one might put it differently. I think the clinical interviews in this case at that time, the family were aware that the information was being shared, and also might be used in the preparation of court reports. But it is true that I think you would still be circumspect about what you would put in that report.
THE CHAIRMAN: I have a question, if I may. It is going back to this note which is under (ee) on page 2 – your handwritten notes there at the end. It is where you have written, “… felt accused of killing [child M1]”.
A Yes.
Q I am just trying to explore what this might have meant. I think you said that you perhaps cannot recall exactly what was said, but in the way that you write up notes as a psychiatrist, in doing this would you try and summarise, or put a gloss on the words that the patient was using to you? You have listened to what the patient has said?
A Yes.
Q Would you be thinking what sort of thing happens in an interview given perhaps by a psychiatrist, although Dr Southall is not a psychiatrist, but that kind of interview, would you then be transferring those thoughts into how you write up the notes?
A Yes. I think if something particularly significant is said, you would try to record that verbatim. Also, it is encapsulated the point that you wanted to make overall, so I think that the quotes that I put down there encapsulated the idea of Mrs M’s view that she had been accused of killing the boy. So I would say those quotations really, verbatim quotations, fed into that conclusion, which was her own conclusion too.
Q Perhaps you will appreciate we are trying to explore the difference ---
A Yes.
Q --- whether there was anything said about actual words.
A Yes.
Q And how the use of words then makes a person feel. I just wondered if you could remember any more about how she had expressed those feelings?
A I think her words would have been, “He accused me of killing the boy,” and I would have written, “She felt accused of killing him.”
Q Because you were translating her words into how you would see it as a psychiatrist?
A Yes. I could have written down her actual words, but I did not on that particular point.
Q Does that boil down to the fact that you cannot now say exactly what words she would have used?
A I think beyond what I put in the quotation marks, I cannot say exactly what words she used.
THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. That explanation is very helpful. It is possible either counsel might have further questions arising from the panel’s questions.
Further cross-examined by MR COONAN
Q Madam, would you permit me two questions? (To the witness) Dr Corfield, a few minutes ago, in answer to questions by the Chair of the panel, you said, can I suggest for the first time, that her, Mrs M’s, words would have been that Dr Southall accused her of killing him?
A Yes.
Q Would have been?
A Yes.
Q We have to be very careful, do we not, about a witness such as you who is called primarily to give evidence as to what was recorded at the time, as you have done, and then overlaying it, eight years later, with the patina of reconstruction, have we not?
A Indeed.
Q So to say, as you said a few minutes ago, that Mrs M would have said that is speculative at best, is it not?
A I cannot say that she definitely said that, no.
Q In other words, you cannot be sure that she said that?
A I cannot be sure she said that.
Q Thank you. Now, the second matter concerns a couple of matters raised by
Mrs Lloyd, which I think followed up a line of questions developed by Mr McFarlane by reference to the second page of your report, which I think is at 1 ff, to help you. It is correct, as Mr Tyson has drawn our attention to it when he was first questioning you, that on the second page in the penultimate paragraph you recorded that Mrs M told you that she had seen Professor Southall and she had found this interview difficult and disturbing?
A Yes.
Q There was then some discussion between Mrs Lloyd and yourself about confidentiality. Let me say at once I do not understand the position that you take here. You were being asked to provide a report to give to the judge, were you not?
A Yes.
Q Anything which passes between a party to the proceedings and yourself as an expert is potentially relevant to the issue which would be before the court?
A I did not see myself as an expert in providing these reports. I saw myself as the treating clinician providing a professional report on my contact with the family.
Q The point is that you had a dual role here, I think. You may have been providing therapeutic care and treatment but you had been instructed by all parties to provide a report wearing your expert’s hat?
A It was an update on the work that we were doing because it does not really give an opinion as you would do in an expert’s report.
Q Were you being asked at all to deal with the question of Munchausen’s or not?
A I was not.
Q But you knew that that was an issue in the case?
A Yes.
Q And was still a live issue?
A Well, yes.
Q Because, if evidence had emerged of Munchausen’s, that would be a highly relevant factor to place before the court again?
A Yes.
Q In other words, the proceedings as a whole were not over, were they?
A No. I think it was in May when people’s reports were prepared for me.
Q The point being that even though the interim care order application was refused at that time, that did not mean that the court process was finished, did it?
A It did not.
Q The point I want to explore with you is that if there had been a stark allegation made by Mrs M about one of the experts in the case and she had denied it, then you would have recorded that, surely?
A I agree I could have expanded on it on page 2, but I made a brief comment about it.
Q You did?
A I did make a brief comment about it but obviously Professor Southall’s report was being prepared within that timescale and would illustrate his interview with her and his views on the case.
Q But there would have been no damage to confidentiality if you had put into this report for example that Mrs M was accused by Dr Southall of murdering her child “but she has told me that this is complete rubbish”, or words to that effect, because that would have assisted the forensic process, would it not?
A You said that Mrs M had said that Professor Southall had accused her of killing the boy and I think we had agreed that the interpretation was that she had felt accused.
Q The fact that the impression she was giving was that she felt accused was not something you would feel like putting in the report. You did not see the need?
A I did not put it in the report.
Q But if she had said in terms that Dr Southall had accused her of killing the child, is that something that you would have put into the report?
A I think that would be something that I would have discussed more widely.
Q Yes, you would have discussed it more widely with those involved in this forensic process, would you not?
A I think I would.
Q And you would have drawn it to the attention of His Honour Judge Tonking in your report, would you not?
A I might well have done that
Further re-examined by MR TYSON
Q There is a problem here arising out of something that you have told the Chairman, which I recorded, and I think everybody else in the room recorded. You told the Chairman of this panel: “Her words to me would have been he accused me of killing the boy”.
A Yes.
Q My simple question is this. To the best of your recollection, were those the words that she used to you?
A I said they would have been and I think that must imply that no, I cannot say that for sure.
Q But why do you say they would have been?
A Because I wrote down that she felt accused of that, and I was trying to interpret why I would have written that down. My own ideas about that are that it would have been because that is what she would have said to me, but I cannot say it absolutely for sure because I cannot remember that it was.
MR TYSON: Are you saying that as that is what she felt and that would have been because she told me that there was an actual accusation?
MR COONAN: That is leading.
MR TYSON: I am going through your thought processes.
A Yes, it is very difficult. I wrote down that she felt accused by him. I do believe that to be the case. By that I mean I think, if asked, she would say that is how it came across to her, but I cannot remember her saying those words.
MR TYSON: I do not think I can take it any further. Thank you very much.
THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Dr Corfield. That completes your evidence. You can stand down now. You are no longer on oath. Thank you for helping us.
(The witness withdrew)
MR TYSON: There is one bit of housekeeping before I would ask you to adjourn until 9.30 tomorrow for part two, a small lecture on medical records. The first witness was shown a document arising out of questions by the panel of the police investigation. I took you to a document from the West Mercia Police. I said I would introduce it and I do now introduce that document. It was brought in from Mrs Lloyd’s questions. It goes into the bundle under C1. I just ask you to insert it under C1 in the existing tab jj.
THE CHAIRMAN: Under the circumstances, it does not need an additional number.
MR TYSON: Please insert it at the back of C1 just before the figure 2.
(Document marked and circulated for C2)
THE CHAIRMAN: Are you able to tell us if you will continue with your opening or will you be calling witnesses tomorrow?
MR TYSON: I will go back to the proper order and continue with my opening, which will be on the second part of the heads of charge relating to the SC5s and medical records, and then, just to assist the panel, I will be calling the solicitor involved in the end aspect of the case. You will be hearing from the solicitor in the afternoon. Then I will be calling Professor David who will be giving wide-ranging expert evidence. Before you actually hear him, I will be inviting the panel to take some reading time to read the evidence that he will give, because the more pre-reading you can do, the less time that we will actually have to spend in open session going through it. You have his reports in C3, but some time after my opening and before I call him, I will ask the panel to absorb such bits of C3 that they want,
THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. That helps us with what is likely to happen in the next day or so.
(The Panel adjourned until 9.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 15 November 2006)