GENERAL MEDICAL COUNCIL
FITNESS TO PRACTISE PANEL (PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT)
Tuesday 21 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 SEVEN)
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 D, Continued
Examined by MR TYSON, Continued 1
Cross-examined by MR COONAN 8
Re-examined by MR TYSON 22
Questioned by THE PANEL 24
MRS ELINOR BETH PARRY, Sworn
Examined by MR TYSON 29
Cross-examined by MR COONAN 42
Re-examined by MR TYSON 49
Questioned by THE PANEL 50
Further cross-examined by MR COONAN 53
Further re-examined by MR TYSON 54
MR JOHN WILLIAM CHAPMAN, Affirmed
Examined by MR TYSON 55
THE CHAIRMAN: Good morning. (After a pause) Mr Tyson?
MRS D, Re-called
Examined by MR TYSON, Continued
Q Good morning, Mrs D?
A Good morning.
Q We were going through your attempts in 1987, 1988 and 1989 to find the SC file relating to your child. Can I take you back, please, to bundle C2 at section 4(k), at page 23?
A This is not my file. (Same handed)
Q Before I take you to this document – and do not answer this question until I have heard what my learned friend has to say – is there anything about the documentation which I took you to yesterday that you want to say something to the Panel about?
MR COONAN: There may be many things that she might want to say about the documentation. I do not know, madam, where this might be leading us, it is such an open-ended question. Either it is going to be directed to the matters that you have been invited to consider, or not, I do not know. I am in the dark.
MR TYSON: Madam, perhaps I can ask your Legal Assessor to bear in mind what I am about to say. Of course, I cannot speak to my witness, but I understand that my witness indicated to my solicitor this morning that there was something about one of the documents I took her through yesterday that she wanted to say something to the Panel about. Of course, my solicitor could not speak to her either about what it is that this witness wanted to say. I indicated to my learned friend that he and I, indeed everybody, was in the dark about what this witness wanted to say, but having had that information, if this witness has something she wants to say about one of the documents that I have already taken her to, I think she should be entitled so to do.
THE LEGAL ASSESSOR: Madam, it is always difficult when the Panel is in the dark and counsel is in the dark, but as Mr Tyson has said, it is appropriate for a witness to make further comment about a document or evidence that has been given hitherto. The difficulty arises if what is about to be said is something which would not ordinarily be admissible. However, the safety net is here in this way, because if, when the witness says what she feels she wishes to say, it is apparent to counsel that this is a matter which should not be before the Panel then doubtless the matter will be raised. The further part of the safety net is that you are, of course, a professional Panel, and if, indeed, you were to hear something which in the ordinary course would not be admissible, you are sufficiently able to put those matters out of your minds as and when it comes to considering the issues before you. My advice to you is that you should hear what the witness has to say, hear anything to be said by counsel in the course of what she is saying, and then you must decide whether or not you should attach any weight to what she is going to put before you.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is that advice acceptable to you both, Mr Tyson and Mr Coonan?
MR COONAN: It is to me, yes.
MR TYSON: It is to me, but I do not know whether it is to your Panel.
THE CHAIRMAN: I see nods all round.
MR TYSON: (To the witness) Mrs D, is there anything about the documentation which I took you to last night that you wish to tell the Panel about?
A It is actually about a document that fits in prior to this document of 22 January 1999 and to the report from North Staffordshire Hospital in March 1998.
Q We looked at that at ---
A It actually is not in this bundle but it is very relevant to the search for the files, which
is what brought my attention to it. It actually was not in this bundle, but that was my mistake.
Q Is there another document between the one of March 1998 and January 1999 that you think is relevant to your search?
A That is correct.
Q Could you identify that document?
A It is a document that was sent to North Staffordshire, Mr Fillingham, by Claire Davis, Berkshire Social Services, to do with the medical records that I had obtained and that there were obviously records missing and they also brought concerns from her in this letter. Is it possible to briefly mention what was in the letter?
MR COONAN: I would like to see the letter first before the comments made about it.
THE WITNESS: I have a copy here, if I am allowed.
MR TYSON: Perhaps you can produce it, but not formally, so counsel can just see it. (Document produced and handed to Mr Tyson and Mr Coonan) Madam, I make no application that that letter should go in.
MR COONAN: In those circumstances I am content, because I do not think it is admissible.
MR TYSON: (To the witness) As you said, you received certain information from the local authority, but thereafter in January 1999 you wrote to the Ombudsman, which we can see at page 23, and you indicated that you were now in a position to provide the Ombudsman with all the documentary evidence he may required to investigate your case. You said:
“It is my view that Professor Southall at North Staffordshire has not acceded to my request for access to all my son’s medical records, as the hospital claims that some of these are the property of Professor Southall, as they form part of his research.
Pausing there for a moment, Mrs D, where did you get the information about what the hospital was claiming that you mentioned in that letter?
A I believe to the best of my knowledge that this was via a phone call when I referred, I think to Mrs Findler on numerous phone calls to try and obtain copies of the SC file. I explained to her how I knew that there was an SC file because on three documents in the medical records that relate to recording information and patient data it had an SC number. This is when I believe she said to me that this is part of Professor Southall’s research and then is his property. I did later then try and clarify this in writing with North Staffordshire, but I do feel that I did see it written down somewhere but I cannot find that information.
Q Mrs Findler, does she work for North Staffs?
A She does. I am not sure in what title.
Q You went on to add:
“I must point out that my son’s referral was an NHS referral and at no time was my permission sought for my son to participate in an ‘research’ programme.”
A That is correct.
Q As a result of involving the Ombudsman did you get the SC file?
A I did not. I had a reply from the Ombudsman which unfortunately, with the amount of files, I have lost – this was about six months later – and he stated that because of the time that my son was at North Staffordshire that it was actually out of his remit to investigate this further and so I had no success there.
Q Did you take the matter up again with the Trust and on 22 March did you write to Mrs Findler at the Trust? Could you turn to the letter at page 25 please?
A I wrote to Mrs Findler after actually speaking to Mr Linsay at the General Medical Council regarding the search and the problems that I was having obtaining copies of the SC file and I asked for his help in obtaining these. He then spoke to Mrs Findler by phone and also then spoke to me and assured me that the hospital would be forwarding this correspondence on and I still never received this correspondence.
Q Did you write on 22 March:
“Dear Mrs Findler
I am waiting to receive correspondence in my son’s … notes after Mr Lindsay from the GMC spoke to you. He assured me that there would be no further delays.
I would also like to request as soon as possible all computerised records on my son … under the Data Protection Act.”
A I did, because I felt that maybe the SC file was being held on computer as well and that would be a way of obtaining the records.
Q On the 29th did you receive a reply to that letter from the executive director, Mr Blythin, which we see in page 26?
“Further to my letter dated 23rd March I am now in a position to respond as follows:
With reference to your request for copies of documentation since September 1997, I confirm that there is no additional documentation other than that which was sent to you on 30th March 1998.”
A I did receive this letter but they are still not answering the issue of other records that I believed were in the SC file regarding my son’s admission at North Staffordshire Hospital.
Q He says:
“There is, however, copy documentation from agencies such as Slough Social Services, East Berkshire Community Health and Southampton General Hospital which the Trust is unable to disclose. I would suggest, therefore, that you contact these organisations directly for access to these notes providing them with your form of authority.
Regarding the computerised records, I have asked Stuart Webb, Information Security Project Manager, to contact you direct concerning access to these documents.”
A I did.
Q When you got that assurance on page 26 that there was no additional documentation, what did you consider in relation to that answer?
A I was aware that there was other additional documentation that was not in the other hospital records because I had already received records from the other authorities, including social services, and Great Ormond Street social services actually stated that some of the documentation was Professor Southall’s property because he had chaired that meeting, and I was unable to obtain copies of that from anywhere.
Q Did you reply to that letter of the 29th by your letter of 30 March at page 27 to Mr Blythin:
“Hoping to have your response shortly. There is another matter that I would be grateful for your clarification.
Mr Fillingham stated that I would not be allowed access to the second file on my son … (SC file) as this was not part of my son’s medical records.
Is the second file part of Professor Southall’s research?
Could you please clarify this question as soon a possible to the above fax number. Also if the file is not part of the research could you please clarify what the file contains and why it was held on my son …”.
A I did write this letter because I felt that if they were not medical records, I felt the only other reason was the research which has been told to me on the phone, that these records could be part of research or were part of research.
Q Did you get answer to that question on page 28, which was saying:
“I have asked for consideration to be given to your queries, following which I will write to you again.”
A There were still no answers.
Q Then did you write again, effectively chasing, on page 29:
“Despite several phone calls and queries I have not received a telephone call or fax from yourself re the S/C file 3874 held on my son ….. I recently received computerised records which stated a diagnosis of dysponea and respiratory abnormalities despite Prof Southall stating that everything was normal.”
A I did write this letter, but I believe that there may be some confusion with the date, because I have put on there April 99 and I stated that I had received computerised records, but I actually did not receive those until June 99, so whether that was with my stress at the time I put the wrong date, I do not know, but I did write that letter. In fact, the computerised records that it is talking about was only faxed to me. That has not been seen in any of the medical records.
Q We will come on to those computerised records in a moment. Again, did you chase the matter in May 1999, the letter at page 30:
“I would be grateful if you could respond to my queries re the file on my son ….. S/C 3874. I received a letter from you dated 30th March 99 in which you stated that you were asking for consideration to my queries. This was five weeks ago and as yet I have not received any further response.”
A I did carry on chasing up the records because by then I was aware that Professor Southall had made further contacts with child protection regarding his concerns for my son despite his name being removed from the “at risk”, and I felt that it was only possibly by receiving the SC file that I could protect my son and keep him safe with the information that may be held in there.
Q Did you get a letter in response to that from Mr Blythin, which we have at page 31:
“Further to your letter ….. I am writing to inform you that the investigation into the questions you raised in your letter ….. are taking longer than anticipated.”
A I think it was just acknowledging my letter, but there was still no answer to my concerns.
Q Could you look at section 6 within the file that you have in front of you and go to tab (b) within 6. Do you have that, Mrs D?
A I do.
Q Did you become aware later that at about this time Professor Southall wrote to the Deputy Business Manager on North Staffordshire Hospital on 16 April about your son D:
“In no way was [Child D] subject to any form of research in my department. I enclose his special case file so that you can look through it and decide how you describe the various contents of this. My view is that they are part of social services and other hospital records rather than being directly related to his admission to the North Staffordshire Hospital under my care as a consultant paediatrician.”
A Unfortunately I cannot remember when I did receive this letter. I am not sure whether I only saw this when we eventually did receive the SC file or before, but as it shows, Professor Southall did acknowledge that it did form part of other hospital records.
Q Did there come a time when you found or were sent the computerised records that were held on the main computer at North Staffs Hospital relating to your child?
A Sorry, could you repeat the question?
Q Did there come a time when you received the computer documentation?
A I did receive the computer documentation.
Q Can you turn back to where we were before, which is 4(k) at page 32. Is this a letter from the Information Security Project Manager to you dated 27 May 1999:
“Please find enclosed copies of the computerised records held on computer systems at North Staffordshire NHS Trust for [Child D] as you previously requested.”
Turning over the page at page 33, did you get this document, which appears to contain a number of dates relating to your admissions?
A I did receive this document. I believe that there was another document very similar to this that actually quoted diagnosis.
Q Can we turn over the page to page 34, and does this give descriptions of the symptoms involving respiratory systems and other chest, dysponea and respiratory abnormalities?
A I did not receive this in the first set. This was what was actually faxed to me. It was just a précis saying “diagnosis” but not with this amount of information on there, so I realised that there was information missing and I contacted Mr Webb again and he said, “Yes”, there was a printout diagnosis and he faxed me that day this paper.
MR TYSON: Can I just show a document to my learned friend. (Same handed to Mr Coonan) (To the witness) If you look at this document, please. (Same handed) Does that have manuscript on it saying:
“2.6.99
[Ms D] phoned
- waned to see diagnosis of her son
- faxed through”.
A That is correct. This is what I was referring to.
Q Is there a fax date on that saying 2 June at 1708? Perhaps the members of the Panel can put that in their bundle perhaps at 34A. (Same handed) Turning 34A upside down, is that the same as page 34?
A As far as I can see, yes.
Q So you have got the document that we see at page 34 later, having discussed the matter that you wanted to see something about a diagnosis?
A That is correct.
Q You see that there is a diagnosis there that appears to be dysponea respiratory abnormalities. How did that information compare with the information that you had had from Professor Southall about your son when you had seen him in 1994?
A Professor Southall actually stated that everything was normal, but he also stated in the chronology that on analysis of tape recordings there were no abnormalities. That is why I was surprised there were no records or analysis in the medical records showing what was analysed after tape recording.
Q Looking at page 35, did you get that information with the letter from Mr Webb that we see at 32?
A I did.
Q Did you notice anything about that in terms of the numbering on it, or the like?
A I noticed again that it had missing at the top but number 3874, again relating to recordings, but I was surprised to find at the bottom of the page about a Brompton number and the words “Outcome: Death?”; I just did not understand this patient data. It appears, whether it was related to the Brompton Hospital, I do not know.
Q So having received the computer data in May, did you renew your search for the actual SC file, which we can see at page 36?
A I did, because I felt that there obviously was more documentation missing.
Q Was this a letter to Mr Blythin:
“Despite numerous telephone calls in which I have spoken to your secretary because neither yourself or Mrs Fidler have ever been available, and faxes sent, you have still failed to contact me in reference to my question regarding S/C file ….. 3874 held on my son ….. I was told that this file was not part of [my child’s] medical records. I therefore asked if it was research, whether CVS was undertaken. I originally asked these questions [in February] 1999. Please can these questions be answered, also can I now have access.”
A I did ask these questions because I wanted it in writing exactly what the SC file contained, but also by this time I was made aware that the room in North Staffordshire that my son was in for the three nights was the room that CVS was undertaken.
Q For members of the Panel who do not know what CVS means, what does that mean?
A Covert video surveillance. I would like to say that I did have no concerns whether there was covert video surveillance there, but I felt that, you know, I should maybe have been aware.
Q As a result of that letter did you get access to the SC file?
A I still did not have access to the SC file. I would like to say, if it is possible, that when I said that I was not concerned about the covert video surveillance was that there were suggestions that Professor Southall was accusing me of harming my son and I felt that with that, that would show that I was not harming my son.
Q Did there come a time in July 2002, so this is moving on about three years after the correspondence that we are looking at, did you do a statutory declaration in support of your complaint to the General Medical Council?
A Should I have that in front of me, or not?
Q No, you should not. I am just asking you to confirm whether you did a statutory declaration in support of your complaint to the General Medical Council in July 2002?
A I did make a statutory declaration, but I am not too sure of the date.
Q I do not think it is disputed that it was July 2002. By that time, July 2002, did you have access to your SC file?
A I still had no access.
Q Can you tell the Panel, please, when, and the circumstances in which, you got access to your SC file?
A Do I need to speak about the in-between period where there were things going on that I was told I would have access to?
Q No. I want you to tell the Panel when you got access. I am told I can lead. Did you have a solicitor acting for you in relation to your civil claim called Rachel Vasmer?
A I did.
Q Did she make inquiries on your behalf to seek to obtain the SC file?
A Mrs Vasmer made inquiries for over a year herself to obtain copies of the SC file.
Q Did there come a time, out of the blue, when she was asked simply to pay the access fee, and the SC file was sent to her in July 2003.
A She did, but prior to that she had stated that she might have to make application to the court to obtain the records, on two occasions. Then she was asked to pay the access fee and was sent the records I think in June 2003.
Q You told us yesterday that when you initially asked for the North Staffordshire records for your child, you received 18 pages.
A That is correct.
Q When you received the SC file, which we have at C6, were you surprised at its volume?
A I was surprised at the volume, but I still felt there was documentation missing from the SC file.
MR TYSON: Thank you, Mrs D. Wait there because there may be more questions.
Cross-examined by MR COONAN
MR COONAN: Mrs D, just to clarify one small matter in relation to the questions Mr Tyson was asking you. Your solicitor, Mrs Vasmer, in connection with a potential civil action you were bringing was in communication with solicitors acting for the trust, was she not?
A She was. That was a George Davis.
Q Yes, George Davis & Company were the solicitors for the trust. She was communicating with them and you tell us for quite some time, you said for over a year.
A It was six months with George Davis and then six months with Hempsons.
Q It was as a result of following Hempsons involvement.
A Yes.
Q But of course, Hempsons were not acting for the trust, were they?
A I do not know.
Q I am told that is right. So following Hempsons intervention on behalf of the trust, it was shortly after that that the SC files appeared.
A Six months.
MR TYSON: My learned friend appeared to be saying that Hempsons were acting on behalf of the trust. I understand that Hempsons were acting on behalf of their current client.
MR COONAN: I just want to clarify this. Hempsons were involved at a later stage because of the legal action that you brought against the trust and other agencies.
A That may be where the involvement was.
Q Absolutely, but at first it was George Davis.
A That is right.
Q It was following their involvement, over a period of time, that the SC files then appeared.
A That is correct.
Q I just wanted to clarify that. Mrs D, I want to take you back a long time ago, 12 years ago to December 1994 when you saw Dr Southall. Do you remember where you were when you saw him?
A Was this on the ward round?
Q You tell me where it was you saw him. I do not know.
A In December 1994 it was on 15th because my son was admitted on the 12th. This was after three nights recordings and I saw Professor Southall on the afternoon of that day.
Q Where?
A I believe it was in a corridor, but I cannot be absolutely certain whether it was a large room or a corridor, but I believe it was in the corridor outside the play room.
Q Where is the ward where your son was in relation to the corridor?
A I cannot be absolutely 100 per cent certain because it was a long time ago, but if I could explain, from what I can recollect, the day room was here, the corridor was here, and I believe the ward and the room may have been at the top. I believe but I cannot be absolutely 100 per cent certain.
Q You are in a corridor. You are not sure whereabouts it was.
A I know it was in the close vicinity of the playroom and the ward we were in.
Q Is this right, you then saw Dr Southall, in the corridor?
A Yes.
Q With some other doctors.
A With some other doctors and I believe there could have been one or two nurses there.
Q Was Dr Samuels part of the group of doctors?
A I had never met Dr Samuels so I was not aware of who the other doctors were, but the records show that Dr Samuels was there so I believe he was on the ward round.
Q Pause there. I do not want you to engage in reconstruction 12 years later by reference to medical records. I am asking for your recollection.
A I do not know who the other doctors were.
Q Do you see the danger of trying to reconstruct events by looking at documents which are not yours?
A That is only in relation to you questioning me on the name of the doctor.
Q But you do not know is the answer.
A I do not know who the doctors were.
Q Were they coming down the corridor?
A I hope you realise, as you said again, that it was 12 years ago and there are aspects of that meeting about which I am not very clear, but there are aspects, as I explained yesterday, that are imprinted in my memory.
Q That may be, and we will explore those in a minute. My question was, were they walking towards you?
A I am not too sure. All I remember was that I looked and I saw Professor Southall there with a number of other doctors with a trolley with the records on. That is what I remember seeing.
Q Did these doctors appear to be talking together?
A They did.
Q You went up to them because you had questions to ask.
A I went up to them because I did not want them to miss seeing my son because he was not in the ward or in the room.
Q But you had questions to ask, things to say.
A No. We were told that we would be seeing them because we were supposed to be going home that day.
Q But you went up to the group to speak to Dr Southall, did you not?
A I went up to the group to let them know that we were there.
Q But to speak to them.
A I assumed that they wanted to speak to us, because my son was supposed to be going home.
Q I am trying to understand the dynamics. You are in one area. You see this group and you go up to the group intending to speak to them.
A From my recollection, I believe I may have just stood there so that they would be aware that we were there.
Q You remember that, do you?
A I remember standing there, but I cannot remember whether it was me that initiated talking to the doctors or whether the doctors initiated talking to me.
Q You were at a time when your son entered hospital in December 1994, so you must have been a rather anxious mother.
A I was anxious at times, yes.
Q You must have been additionally anxious because of the events of the previous evening.
A I was worried, but my son had had events similar to that before so I was no more anxious than I had been for a long long time.
Q You drew particular attention yesterday, the attention of the Panel, to the nursing record, did you not?
A I did make note.
Q Obviously you wanted to know from Dr Southall, as the consultant, what the position was, did you not?
A I did.
Q He told you – let us see if we can agree about this – that everything appeared or was normal.
A That is correct.
Q You appreciate I cannot put to you verbatim pieces of conversation because of the time lapse. You understand?
A Yes.
Q So I am putting to you the gist of what I do not challenge. You were told that everything was normal.
A That is correct.
Q That he, Dr Southall, wanted to refer your son to Professor Warner.
A That is correct.
Q Who was an expert allergist of experience and expertise across the world.
A That is correct.
Q When Dr Southall told you of those two factors, it would have been absolutely clear to you that you would not, in the circumstances, be getting the monitor.
A As I said yesterday, I was aware that we would not be receiving the monitor.
Q Which is what you actually wanted to have, is it not?
A I felt that if the doctors could not explain what was happening to my son or he could not be helped, that was the only way, so I was actually pleased at the referral to somebody that may be able to explain what was happening to my son, and more to help him so there would not be a need for a monitor.
Q But you must have been disappointed that you were not getting a monitor and that Dr Southall had not, at that stage, provided a solution to the problem.
A I believe that I accepted that he was not going to give a monitor, and I felt that he did not understand my son’s problems, because he was not an allergist and I felt that at least he was referring me to somebody who may be able to help.
Q So you felt that he did not understand your son’s problems.
A Because he said that everything was normal.
Q You are quite a vocal woman, are you not?
A Could you please explain?
Q You are quite vocal.
A What do you mean by “vocal”?
Q You are not afraid to express what you think.
A I would not really call myself vocal.
Q You are quite demanding.
A I would not call myself demanding.
Q You would not?
A No, I would not. As I said, I did not demand a monitor and when I realised that we were going home without a monitor I did not even broach the subject with Professor Southall.
Q The third matter about which you and I are not going to be in dispute, is that Dr Southall probably said words to the effect that there was no such thing as a delayed reaction.
A He did indeed. To my recollection he did state that.
Q I am not challenging that, again with the proviso that it is not verbatim because of the lapse of time, but words to that effect there is no dispute about.
A Right.
Q But I do want to come to the area about which there is dispute. You told the Panel yesterday that Dr Southall said these things, and in particular when he said there was no such thing as a delayed reaction, with an angry voice.
A He did raise his voice.
Q Let us look at that. He raised his voice. Yesterday you described it as representing anger.
A A raised voice with an angry tone.
Q How often had you had to experience how Dr Southall talks?
A I had only seen him on the one occasion prior to that and he had not raised his voice at all.
Q You had seen him almost on a one to one basis in a consultation room, had you not?
A At that one time we did, yes.
Q Here you are, coming across a group in a corridor, doctors, probably nurses, talking together and you – I do not mean to be pejorative – intervene.
A I do not believe I intervened. I believe I stood there and waited, because that would not be my way.
Q Who else was around in this corridor?
A As you say, going back so many years at first I felt that my ex-partner was there, because he was there at the beginning, but it was clear that he was not in the corridor. Peripheral to how Professor Southall spoke to me, other than realising at first the doctors and the nurses there, it was insignificant really whether my ex-partner was nearby.
Q You have told us he was not there.
A He was not there, no.
Q I will come back to that in a minute. Were other parents or members of the public present?
A I did not see anybody. It seemed quite quiet in the corridor.
Q I just want to examine this. You are saying that because of a raised voice, which you had not experienced when you met him the first time, and the tone of that voice, you concluded, and concluded at that time that he was angry. Is that right?
A I felt sick at the way Professor Southall spoke to me and I can only remember that as being when somebody speaks angrily at you.
Q Not sick because you had received disappointing news?
A No, because at that time I was not aware that we were not going home with the monitor. As I explained before, I was actually happier that Professor Southall was referring my son to somebody that could sort out the problem rather than the need for the monitor.
Q Let me come straight to the point. I am going to suggest to you that Dr Southall was not angry, he did not raise his voice and he was not dismissive.
A That is incorrect.
Q There is a difference, is there not, would you say, both in quality and degree between somebody who would appear to you to be angry with a raised voice on the one hand, and on the other hand, somebody who was merely abrupt in conversation? There is a difference, is there not?
A I think there is a big difference.
Q There is a difference. Your partner, let us just look at him for a minute. He, you tell us, was present at least at the beginning of this episode.
A That is correct.
Q But at some stage in this short encounter, a nurse came up to him and asked him to come away for a cup of coffee.
A I did not hear that and I did not see that. It is only with talking with my ex-partner that that is what he explained happened.
Q When did he tell you that?
A This was not that long ago, so I do not remember it at the time. I do not remember him saying that at the time.
Q But when did he tell you that?
A It was in conversation, I think, after I was aware that he was not going to make a statement to the General Medical Council.
Q After you realised that he was not going to make a statement?
A Yes.
Q But he has made a statement, has he not?
A I was not aware because I have not been in that much contact with him.
Q Are you saying you do not know that he has made a statement to the General Medical Council?
A I believe the General Medical Council were going to ask him to make a statement, but whether he actually made one, I am not absolutely certain.
Q So if what you are saying is right, and this account you have given – namely, that he has told you that he went off and had a cup of coffee --
A I do not know whether he actually went off or was told to go off. I do not know whether he actually went.
Q Let us go back to the beginning. As far as you were aware, at the time of this encounter your partner was present.
A Because he was there initially. I hope you realise that it was a long time after the incident that I was asked to give an account of this, and that was in my first statement in 2002, so I gave an account to the best of my knowledge. I was not asked to go into detail in that account so in my first statement it was a very brief description.
Q Let us go back. Your understanding, your own recollection was that your partner had been present during this encounter. Is that right?
A I felt that he was, yes.
Q On that basis there would have been no reason why he would not have been able to hear and see what Dr Southall was saying.
A He obviously was not there because --
Q Let us just think for a moment. If he was there, on the assumption that you have given us that he was there, he would have been able to witness the event, would he not?
A That is correct.
Q The account you gave yesterday therefore, about your partner being asked to go off for a cup of coffee by the nurse, is, you tell us, something your partner has told you about only relatively recently. Let us just examine that. The picture is, is it, that just at the moment when you are about to speak to, or perhaps have even begun to speak to Dr Southall, your partner is asked by a nurse to go off for a cup of coffee.
A Which I found, as you said, very odd.
Q I was about to suggest it myself. That did not happen, did it?
A He told me that it did.
Q I suggest to you that your partner was present throughout this encounter.
A If he was present then he would be able to back up what I am saying about Professor Southall, but he obviously was not present.
Q I am suggesting that he was present, and whether he backs up what you say remains to be seen. There is no reason why, with you and your partner wanting to find out what was going to happen to your son, your partner, just at a crucial moment, should slip away for a cup of coffee, is there?
A Maybe he felt that the doctor was going to say things that it would be better that my son did not hear. Maybe that is why he thought the nurse said that to him, and I think that same thought went through my mind.
Q You made a statement to the General Medical Council – I use the word “statement” deliberately – in November 2004, did you not?
A I did.
Q I think it might be helpful if you had a copy of this document in front of you so you do not just take it from me.
A I do remember saying in that statement --
Q Just pause for a moment please. I have a clean copy here which you can be shown. (Document handed) Just confirm, please, that it was made for the purposes of this hearing.
A That is correct.
Q If you look at the last page you will see your signature.
A That is correct.
Q And the date 22 November 2004.
A It is not very clear, but I accept that.
Q For my purposes for the moment, please, I want you to read through that where it is relevant, and I will suggest where it might be relevant in terms of the chronology. Just read it through silently to yourself and I shall just ask you the question. Take your time and begin, perhaps at paragraph 10. (Pause for reading)
A Did you just want me to read 10 to 13?
Q Paragraph 10 to 15 if you like, or 10 to 16.
A (After a pause) Yes.
Q That document was written, as you have said, in November 2004. It is almost exactly ten years after these events.
A That is correct.
Q Can you just confirm this point, and that exercise simply goes to this point ---?
A Yes.
Q There is no suggestion in that statement that your partner was asked to leave for a cup of coffee during this encounter, is there?
A No, because I do not believe that that was relevant to how Professor Southall spoke to me.
Q In fact, on the contrary, the description you give, if you look at paragraph 13 in particular, and over the page, the rest of paragraph 13, you are describing the events by using the word “we” are you not? That is you and your partner?
A Yes, but I believe it was because we were initially there and maybe that is why I carried on using the word “we”, I do not know.
Q The fact is that is the first time you have ever mentioned that your partner was not present during the time when you say Professor Southall was displaying anger. The first time you said that was in your evidence yesterday, 12 years later. Is that right?
A I am not sure whether I had said it before, but I will accept that that is what you said because I do not recall when I said it to my solicitors, that I realised that my son’s partner was not there.
Q You told your solicitor, have you?
A I do not know. Because to me this is a small, insignificant matter, it does not stick in my memory and some things are confusing.
Q Just this question: When did you tell your solicitor, if you did?
A I do not know; I do not recall.
Q Are you saying you do not recall if you ever have?
A I believe that I must have spoken to them after I spoke to Mr Butler.
MR TYSON: My learned friend is aware that he is treading on extremely sensitive matters involving legal professional privilege.
MR COONAN: Maybe, but I am suggesting to you that this is the first time that this appeared in any document that I have seen.
A It may have done, but I still feel that because of the time lapse there are things that I cannot remember about that day, but I do remember how Professor Southall spoke to me because it left a lasting memory.
Q A lasting memory?
A Yes.
Q Okay.
A One that I would hope to forget, but I cannot.
Q Before leaving your partner, for the minute, where is he?
A Where does he live, you mean?
Q Yes.
A I believe he lives somewhere in Hampshire but I do not know exactly where.
Q You do not know his address?
A No. He had contact with my solicitors to a phone number; I gave them his telephone number because I have contact with him through a telephone number.
Q It is likely, of course, that your solicitors, Field Fisher Waterhouse, would have his address?
A I do not know. I do not know whether he took their address or whether they have his. I do not know.
Q Let us just move on to other matters. You told us that these events were, in effect, or at least some of them, firmly etched in your mind?
A Some parts are.
Q You described it yesterday, or the process was that you looked back and got your head around it?
A I think by that it means that … When you are concentrating and trying to remember things there are other things that trigger your memory, and you remember things that you may not have remembered when you spoke about an occasion previously. Is that how your mind works? I do not know, but I believe that by really thinking and going through things that I was able to recall.
Q You started the process of making a complaint to the GMC in I think 1997, did you not?
A That is correct.
Q You wrote a letter to the GMC and also again in July 1999?
A I have written various letters to the GMC.
Q As part of the obligation of disclosure which is on your solicitors, we have been able to see those letters. All right?
A Yes
Q As you have already said to the Panel this morning, you made a statutory declaration?
A That is correct.
Q In July 2002?
A That is correct.
Q I am going to ask you, please, to look at a paragraph in that statutory declaration. You will be handed a clean copy and it has been flagged up with a yellow sticker. (Same handed) Just before you open it up, Mrs D, you will see that on the first main page it sets out your full name and your address.
“I solemnly and sincerely declare that in December 1997 and on 15 July 1999 I made a complaint to the GMC, which amongst other matters concerned Professor Southall, in the form of a letter of complaint the details of which are as follows…”,
and then you set out the details of your complaint?
A That is correct.
Q I want to take you, please, to paragraph 97, which is the page with the yellow sticker on.
MR TYSON: Out of fairness to this witness she could read herself into this, perhaps starting at paragraph 94.
MR COONAN: Yes, of course. Yes, just pick it up at paragraph 94 please. You can read into that.
A (After a pause) Yes.
Q Have you read paragraph 97?
A I have.
Q Can you just please read out for the Panel paragraph 97? Take it slowly.
A I am not allowed to use the names, am I?
Q For these purposes I do not think there is an objection to using the first name.
A
“Chris and I saw Professor Southall on the ward round on the morning of the 15th January 1995. Professor Southall was very abrupt and said that there was no such thing as ‘delayed allergic reactions.’ He said he wanted [Child H] to see an Allergist, namely a Professor Warner. He said everything was normal. [Child H] was not given a monitor and we were sent home thinking that everything was safe.”
Q That is all you say about the incident? Just pause for a minute.
A Yes, that is all I said at that time.
Q You are eager to say, but just pause for a minute. In fairness to you, there was an error in the date. That should be a reference to 15 December ---
A 1994.
Q -- as opposed to January 1995?
A That is correct.
Q Mistakes can be made about dates; I fully understand that. The paragraph you have read out is really all that you said in this document about the incident that the Panel is concerned with. Is that correct?
A At that time.
Q At that time, and the date again for us, please, at the end of the document?
A 2004.
Q You will see on the last page ---
A 2002, sorry. 4 July 2003.
Q 4 July 2002?
A That is correct.
Q It finishes, if you look at paragraph 223:
“I make this solemn declaration consciously believing the same to be true and by virtue of the provisions of the Statutory Declarations Act 1835”,
and it sets out your signature. The account you gave there in 2002 was even then eight years after this incident, was it not?
A It was.
Q Approximately. You were no doubt assiduous to put into this document everything that you felt relevant to making a complaint against this doctor stick, were you not?
A No, because as you can see, it was just a very brief account of that account with Professor Southall because my main concern was not how Professor Southall spoke to me, my main concern was the harm that he had done to my son, so I concentrated the complaint more on that rather than this aspect.
Q Mrs D, I fully understand that you had complaints against Dr Southall and they are set out in this document. I do not dispute that.
A Yes.
Q You brought legal proceedings, not in his name, let it be said, but against the Trust and various other agencies, have you not?
A Yes.
Q Not against him personally, but in relation to this situation in 2002, setting out in detail, I suggest, the nature of your complaints against him, all that you said is in relation to paragraph 97?
A Yes.
Q It may be self-evident but let us go through it. There is no reference in that paragraph to Dr Southall being angry in the way in which he dealt with you and possibly your partner, is there?
A Because I did not go into detail of that account in this statement.
Q No reference to the tone of voice he was using?
A Because I did not go into a complete account because I felt that the other concerns, especially to do with the harm to my son, was far more relevant than what was actually said to me.
Q No reference at all to you feeling sick as a result of his conduct?
A As I again say, it was not how I was treated at that time, it was my son.
Q No reference to you being frightened by what he said to ask questions?
A I reiterate that I did not go into detail because I felt that the other concerns were far more serious because they were due to causing harm to my son rather than how I was treated by Professor Southall.
Q And no reference to Dr Southall being dismissive, waving, turning round?
A No, because I did not go into detail.
Q You see, you have started the process of bringing complaints against this doctor, and if, in 2002, these matters that you described, if I may say so, graphically to the Panel yesterday, had made a lasting impression on you in 2002, they would have been no reason for you not to put it in this document, would there?
A As I say, my main concerns were to the harm to my son caused by Professor Southall, not me. It was only at a later date when I was aware that this was a serious concern according to the general medical practice in how patients are treated that I then went into more detail with this account, when I was asked to.
Q You see, so that we have it absolutely clear, 2002 in the statutory declaration was indeed the first time ever you had complained about what I am going to call a “corridor incident”, is it not?
A I am not too sure. I cannot recollect when I did first talk about the corridor incident, because, as I said, my main concern was my son and not me.
Q Whatever may have been your motivation, it may have other consequences, but so that there is no doubt about it, I am putting to you a positive suggestion that this was the first time you had made a complaint to anybody about what I am calling the “corridor incident”, eight years later?
A It may have been, yes.
Q It follows, does it not, that at the time you made no complaint to the nursing staff?
A About how Professor Southall spoke ---?
Q Yes.
A No, because my main concern was my son.
Q I just want to go through this, you see. The Panel can make an assessment. You did not make any complaint to the hospital about his conduct?
A No, because I felt that that was irrelevant considering all the other concerns at the time.
Q That may be, but if what you say is right as being an accurate assessment of what happened on that corridor in 1994, whatever may have been your other concerns – and I do not dispute them – you are going to complain about this doctor’s conduct if what you say is right as to the extent of it.
A This was just a very brief account of the concerns.
Q You did not complain to the hospital did you, that is the point, at any stage prior to 2002?
A Not about how Professor Southall spoke to me, no.
Q You see, not only was there no reference to the corridor complaint in your letters to the GMC which were referred to on the first page of the statutory declaration, not only no reference there, but a complaint was made by you to the Trust in about 1999/2000, was there not?
A I cannot remember all the dates because this has been such a complex history over a number of years.
Q Do you remember making a complaint to the Trust?
A I do remember making a complaint, yes.
Q I am suggesting to you that it was round about 1999/2000?
A Right.
Q So two years or may be three years – the precise time does not really matter – before this statutory declaration?
A I would believe that I made a complaint to the Trust prior to the GMC or round about the same time as the GMC.
Q But prior to the statutory declaration?
A That is correct.
Q Then we agree about that, and I am going to make this suggestion to you so that it is out in the open, that you made no complaint to the Trust in 1999/2000 about Dr Southall’s conduct in the corridor?
A I did not, because my main concern was to keep my son safe and my main concern was the harm that Professor Southall was causing to my son. They were my main concerns.
Q I cannot put a precise date to you because I am not privy to correspondence you may have had with third parties, but round about 2000-ish you enlisted the support of Penny Mellor, did you not?
A I did not enlist the support, and it was actually 1999. I was given her name by somebody as just somebody to talk to because she was aware of other mothers that had been wrongly accused. I did not need her support because I had already made my complaint to the GMC.
Q This is the important point for my purposes. If I could put it this way, Penny Mellor was on board before you made the statutory declaration, was she not?
A She was, but I did not talk to her about my declarations or my statements, she was just purely somebody that I could talk to that was aware of what was happening at the Trust and with other parents. At no time did Mrs Mellor have anything to do with any of my statements.
Q I am going to suggest to you that your account that you have given to the Panel yesterday is exaggerated and it is exaggerated, in part at least, by the passage of time. That is the way I am putting it to you?
A I do not believe that it was an exaggeration.
THE CHAIRMAN: Mr Coonan, I would be looking to have a break shortly.
MR COONAN: Madam, I am almost finished.
(To the witness) One of the comments that you made about Dr Southall at that time was this. Can you just look at paragraph 16 please of the witness statement?
A This? (Indicated)
Q Yes. When you wrote this statement in 2004 – and I am going to quote from paragraph 16 – you said:
“Throughout the latter part of the discussion I felt that Professor Southall was venting his hate towards me.”
A I felt that the way he spoke to me that he did hate me. I had no idea why he was talking to me in such a way, other than when you hate somebody, when you have antagonistic feelings towards them. That is the impression that he gave towards me.
Q You had met him briefly on one previous occasion and you described his conduct as very professional?
A That is exactly how it was at that time.
Q You saw him in the corridor and you felt at the time, you tell Field Fisher Waterhouse in 2004, that even then, in December 1994, that he was, to use your expression, “venting his hate”?
A His attitude towards me in the corridor was very different to the first time that we saw Professor Southall.
Q Again, there is no reference at all to this doctor venting his hate against you in your statutory declaration, is there?
A No, because I elaborated because I was asked to make a statement on that incident, so I went into more detail.
MR COONAN: Thank you very much.
THE CHAIRMAN: Mrs D, we will take a break now. You have been giving evidence for an hour and a half. Mr Tyson may wish to ask you some more questions and the Panel may wish to ask you questions after the break. We will break for twenty minutes. I just want to remind you again that you may not discuss your evidence in the case.
(The Panel adjourned for a short time)
MR COONAN: Madam, I have no further questions.
Re-examined by MR TYSON
Q I have got two areas I would like to ask you questions about. Firstly, when you started your cross-examination you started indicating with your hands where the ward was in relation to the corridor, and I was just wondering whether on a bit of paper, if you have got a pencil---
A This is to the best of me trying to remember.
Q Yes. Could you use your best endeavours by writing it down, or drawing your best recollection of where the playroom was, the ward was and any possible corridor in between.
A (Witness drew diagram) That is to the best of my recollection, my knowledge. (Same handed to Mr Tyson)
MR TYSON: Madam, I am going to ask for some copies of that and I am going to ask for it to be C11.
THE CHAIRMAN: You have just answered my question. Thank you. (Long pause)
MR TYSON: I apologise for the delay, I did not realise it would take so long to do a few photocopies. (To the witness) Do you have a copy of your original?
A Yes, I have.
Q Just to help us with the manuscript, does it say “Top room my son stayed on”?
A That is correct.
Q Then the other bit says “Open ward”.
A Yes.
Q Then the other bit says “Playroom” and the other bit says “Corridor”.
A Yes.
Q Just to help us, just prior to you seeing Professor Southall on 15 December 1994, had you been in the top room or in the playroom?
A In the playroom.
Q Was your son only in the top room overnight and otherwise spent his time in the playroom?
A That is correct.
Q Again, from memory, from which direction was Dr Southall and the accompanying doctors coming?
A I do not recall which direction, but just that I saw them there. I do not know whether it was at the beginning or the end of a ward round, I do not know.
Q This was on what you understood was your last day?
A That is correct.
Q Why did you want to speak to Professor Southall?
A Because we were in the playroom and we knew that we were waiting to see Professor Southall for him to discuss what was happening, because time was getting on and we did have quite a journey ahead of us, I came out of the playroom so that they could be aware that we were there because we were not in the room that I felt maybe that is where Professor Southall may have been heading to see my son and myself.
Q Was there any other ward round with which you were involved with Professor Southall?
A That was the only ward round.
Q It was suggested to you that your account is one of exaggeration. Have you exaggerated to the Panel that Professor Southall raised his voice?
A I have not exaggerated, because to exaggerate I feel is very similar to lying and I have sworn on oath not to lie, or to tell the whole truth as far as I can recall.
Q Did you exaggerate to the Panel that he turned round to go with his hand being raised?
A That is my recollection and I do not believe that I have exaggerated.
Q Did you exaggerate when you told the Panel that you had no time to ask questions about the monitor?
A That is correct, I felt that I was not able to ask any more questions, other than asking what was happening to my son the night before when the doctor was called. I believe that that is the only question that I was able to ask.
Q Did you exaggerate to the Panel when you described the tone of the way that you were being addressed in the middle of that conversation by Professor Southall?
A I do not believe I did, because I felt that it was such a tone that that is why it has stayed in my memory.
MR TYSON: I have no further questions of this witness. Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN: It is now open to the Panel to ask questions. Mr McFarlane is a medical member.
Questioned by THE PANEL
MR McFARLANE: Good morning. I would like to take your attention first of all in file C2, behind tab 4(g), and we will take this slowly because it is to a particular point, and first of all can you turn to page 606, and there are a whole load of notes here which I understand were written by a Dr Suchal, who was the senior house officer, and these relate to the admission of your son to the North Staffordshire Hospital. Now, on the photocopy you will see the copy of where the holes were for the filing system, and in the middle, between those two holes, on the right hand side is a line that says “given SMA”, with an arrow pointing to the right, and it then says “vomiting + faecal vomit”.
A Yes.
Q If you then go to tab (i), but keep your finger in this page 606, if you go to tab (i) on page 266, bottom paragraph, one line up from the bottom, it is written:
“…that as a baby he had been given SMA and that this had produced faecal vomiting.”
This reference I was reading to you was from a report that was prepared by Professor Southall. Now, at the beginning of your evidence you told us that you were an SRN and an RSCN.
A That is correct.
Q I am presuming that this history was obtained by Dr Suchal, the term “faecal vomiting” that he wrote down, which was then transferred by the Professor when he prepared his report. Where did Dr Suchal get this term “faecal vomiting” from?
A I believe that that was from me, because my son vomited quite a lot of times on that one occasion, and at that time he also did not open his bowels very much, it would be sort of ten days or longer, and, because he had vomited so much, what was coming up then was a browny colour.
Q Right. I think you have been helpful. What do you mean by “faecal vomiting”?
A I believe that that is a term when it does come up from the bowel.
Q Right. I understand. I mean, the thing that confused me, for me faecal vomiting is a condition whereby large bowel contents, i.e. faeces, are vomiting and represent a short circuit of the large bowel back up to the stomach, and that is a surgical emergency.
A No, I do not believe that it was an emergency. It was the fact that he had vomited so much I felt that there was nothing left to come up, but it was a brownish colour that was coming up.
Q I think the correct term might be faeculent vomiting rather than faecal, but thank you for explaining that. The next thing I would like you to do is to go to behind tab 6(b), to the letter, which has got page 1731 at the bottom, written by Professor Southall, and that was alluded to us by Mr Tyson. Could you please advise us how many times was your son admitted to the North Staffordshire Hospital as a patient?
A Just the one occasion.
Q Only once?
A That is correct.
Q He was admitted under the care of Professor Southall?
A That is correct.
Q He was not admitted under the care of any other consultant?
A No, he was not, no.
Q I just find it very interesting, and I do not know if you might be able to help us, how the author of the letter can say:
“My view is that they” – “they” referring to the special case files – “are part of ….. other hospital records rather than being directly related to his admission to the North Staffordshire Hospital under my care as consultant paediatrician.”
Are you able to shed any light on that statement?
A I do not understand exactly what Professor Southall meant by that. I do not know whether he meant North Staffordshire, or other hospitals. I do not know exactly how he could clarify that.
MR McFARLANE: Thank you very much indeed.
THE CHAIRMAN: Mrs Lloyd is a lay member.
MRS LLOYD: Good morning, Mrs D. Mrs D, I just wanted to clarify one point of your evidence you gave this morning. You were asked when was the first time you saw Professor Southall, and you said you first met him on 15 December 1994 in the corridor, and then later on, under cross-examination, you said that you had met him once before. Could you just clarify that for me, please.
A I thought that I was asked at the time about on a ward round. I had seen him once at out-patients and once on a ward round, and then at a later date at the case conference, but at that date they were the only two times.
MRS LLOYD: Thank you very much. That clears that up. Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN: Mr Simanowitz is a lay member.
MR SIMANOWITZ: Good morning. I want to ask a few questions just by way of clarification because I am not clear about certain things. The first question I wanted to ask you was in your evidence, talking about your ex-partner, you said, and I appreciate this was speculation, maybe he thought that Dr Southall was going to say things that your son should not hear.
A That is correct.
Q So is it right that all three of you – you, your ex-partner and your son – went out into the corridor to where Dr Southall was?
A I believe now that it possibly was just me that went out into the corridor, but at the time, because I did not sort of realise the implication of all the things relating to that ward round, I did not go into too much detail and I also did not sort of try to remember too much about it, because all that stuck in my mind was how Professor Southall spoke to me.
Q So when you say you believe now, that is from things that have happened since? It is not your memory of this occasion?
A It is my memory, but I am trying to sort of remember everything of that account, and going over it in my head, that that is my belief, that I went out into the corridor so that we would not be missed.
Q Thank you. Now, I am trying to get a picture of what happened, because I think for me certainly it is not clear. You went out and you stood in the corridor.
A I believe, because I do not believe that I actually approached to speak to the doctors first because they were talking, they were discussing, and I believe that it is only right to stand back and wait for a doctor to then acknowledge that you are there, and I believe that that is probably what happened.
Q Okay. So then how did the conversation start, because in your evidence you suggested that Dr Southall said everything was normal, but that does not sound like the beginning of a conversation?
A I cannot recall exactly how the conversation started because of the length of time. I can just remember aspects of that ward round that do stay in my memory.
Q So he did not say, “What do you want?”, or, “Hello”, or anything like that?
A I do not remember any of those phrases.
Q You are quite clear that it was not you who initiated the conversation?
A I do not believe so, but I cannot be absolutely one hundred per cent who did initiate, but I do not believe that I would have intervened when doctors were talking. I would have waited for them maybe to glance at me or acknowledge me, and then, if it was me, I would have spoken, but I do not remember who initiated the conversation.
Q You also said that, “Later he accused me of exaggerating my son’s condition”.
A He did not accuse me at that date. I was not aware at that time that that was Professor Southall’s view.
Q That was not in the conversation?
A No. I was not aware until two years later.
THE CHAIRMAN: I have a couple of questions that relate to the corridor incident, if I can put it that way. You told us about the nature of the conversation. Did you have any difficulty in understanding what Professor Southall was telling you in that intervention?
A I was quite surprised that Professor Southall said everything was normal, and I was obviously confused because to me things were not normal. The alarms were going off and my son was obviously unwell. That is why I could not understand why he said everything was normal.
Q So you understood what he was saying, but you did not understand the implications. Is that a fair way of putting it?
A I could not understand how he could say everything was normal.
Q You did not understand how he could say that?
A That is right, because to my belief that is why I was there with my son in the first place, because everything was not normal.
Q If you understand the difference then, you understood his words and what he appeared to be saying from his side, but it was the implications that flowed from that that raised more questions in your mind.
A The questions flowed from when he said everything was normal, because he then did not clarify what was happening to my son to say this was normal because of this. He gave no clarification whatsoever for just saying everything was normal. When I spoke to him for clarification, that was when I believe he became angry and I was not able to ask any more questions.
Q To the best of your recollection did you ask a question saying what he meant by “normal”?
A No, I do not believe I did use that phrase. I believe I said what was happening to my son last night if everything was normal.
Q Did you get an answer to that question?
A No.
Q What happened at that point?
A I believe that is when Professor Southall became angry.
Q What did he do then from your recollection?
A From my recollection I may have said, “What was happening to my son? Was it a delayed reaction?” I do not know. I may have done but I do not recall that, but then Professor Southall said that there is no such thing as delayed reactions in an angry tone and I felt he was dismissing me from asking any more questions.
Q On the matter of the delayed reaction, was that in response to something because he perhaps would not have said that out of the blue. You are recalling that those are words he said.
A That is right.
Q So how did it arise that he would have said that at all?
A When we saw Professor Southall as an outpatient, I explained that my son had had a delayed reaction to his third immunisation.
Q Then when you talked to him in the corridor, did it just come out of the blue, this further comment about there being no such thing as a delayed reaction?
A I cannot be 100 per cent sure. I could have said, “Was it a delayed reaction?” I may not have said that, I do not remember. All I remember is how Professor Southall spoke to me. I do not remember everything I said at that time. I may have said, “Was it a delayed reaction?” but I do not remember.
Q Obviously something happened that caused him to make that remark as you recall it, but I appreciate you do not remember at this distance. Can I also ask you, you obviously explained that you saw them in the corridor and you went to speak. Was there an issue to do with privacy or confidentiality during the encounter in the corridor?
A I am sorry, I do not understand.
Q It has not formed part of your evidence or complaint but it is in fact mentioned in a head of charge about respecting privacy. Was the fact that whatever was said in the corridor, was this an issue that you felt was to do with privacy, or was it simply the tone of his voice?
A I think it was simply the tone and how he spoke to me.
Q So you were not concerned that confidential matters were being spoken about in the corridor.
A No, because from my recollection I do not remember seeing anybody else other than the people on the ward round.
Q So that was not an issue?
A No, and from my recollection the playroom was very quiet as well. From my recollection we were the only people in there at that time.
THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mrs D. It is possible either counsel might have further questions arising from the Panel’s questions.
MR COONAN: No, thank you, madam.
MR TYSON: No, thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN: That means your evidence is complete and you may stand down.
(The witness withdrew)
MR TYSON: Madam, there is another document which I want you to have, and this will be C12. To understand the context of this document you will need to look at D2. (Document handed) You may recall that in the course of cross-examination of Mrs H, my learned friend put in a document from Field Fisher Waterhouse acting on that occasion for Great Ormond Street and he made some comments to my client, Mrs H, indicating that Great Ormond Street were going to grant voluntary disclosure of all their notes. You may recall Mrs H’s response that whilst that might have been the intention, there were missing notes from Great Ormond Street and the letter, C12, is a letter from Field Fisher Waterhouse, acting in their role for Great Ormond Street, writing to Messrs Huttons on 7 October 1994. Messrs Huttons were the solicitors for family H.
The material parts read:
“You are quite correct as regards the clinical notes disclosed with our letter. It was made clear to the Solicitors previously acting for the H family that the medical notes prior to 1990 were lost. This was acknowledged by them and we are enclosing a copy of their letter of 4 June 1991 for your reference.
The originals have been missing since at least 1990 and have not been traced despite intensive searching at that time and subsequently. However, the hospital has been successful in gathering together reports previous to that time and you will find included among your notes a report in respect of Child H’s admission in February 1986 and one in respect of his admission in October 1988.
We regret that we are therefore unable to offer any further assistance but trust that these summaries will be of use to you”.
So C12 has to be read in the context of D2 and Mrs H’s answers about the fact that Great Ormond Street had lost the notes. I am grateful to my learned friend for enabling me to produce at this time C12 to correct or deal with what the witness said, that there was a letter somewhere saying this.
My next witness is Mrs M’s solicitor, who we sent away, and who has now come back. In relation to this witness’s evidence I will be asking you, please, to look at C1, Tab 1 (gg). That is something called a facsimile transmission dated 23 April 1998.
MRS ELINOR BETH PARRY, Sworn
Examined by MR TYSON
(Following introductions by the Chairman)
Q Could you give to the Panel your full names please?
A Elinor Beth Parry
Q What is your professional address?
A 39 to 41 Church Street, Oswestry, Shropshire.
Q Are you a solicitor with the firm Longueville Gittins?
A I am, yes.
Q Have you worked for that firm since about 1986?
A I have, yes.
Q In early 1998 were you instructed by a lady that we call Mrs M, who had been served with an emergency protection order?
A I was, yes.
Q Was that in relation to her youngest son, who we call either the youngest son or M2?
A That is correct, yes.
Q As a result that emergency protection order had the youngest son been taken away from the M family and placed in foster care?
A Yes, the emergency protection order had been obtained ex parte and the child was immediately removed.
Q You use the term “ex parte.” There are a number of lay people in this room. Does that mean without notice to the M family?
A Yes, that is correct.
Q Did you become involved in the matter subsequent to the emergency protection order being granted as Mrs M’s solicitor?
A Yes, That is correct.
Q In the preparation of the case did the court order a number of independent medical expert reports to be prepared?
A Yes.
Q Is it the case in care proceedings that sometimes all the parties instruct one particular expert or sometimes one or a number of parties instruct a particular expert?
A Yes.
Q It is also the case in care proceedings that for an expert to be instructed the court has to grant leave for that?
A Yes.
Q In this particular case was Professor Southall instructed on behalf of the local authority only?
A That is correct.
Q Was a further independent expert, Dr Black, instructed on behalf of all the parties?
A Yes, she was jointly instructed expert.
Q Was a third expert, Professor Stephenson, a consultant paediatrician, instructed by all the parties save the local authority?
A I cannot remember.
Q But you recall that there was a Professor Stephenson who did prepare a report?
A Yes.
Q Pausing there before we escape from the experts, do you recall that there was a doctor then known as Dr Solomon involved with the M family?
A Yes, Dr Alison Solomon. She is a child psychiatrist.
Q You recall that she was a treating clinician?
A Yes.
Q Due to the number of reports in the case, in her role as a treating clinician as opposed to an independent expert brought in from the outside?
A Yes.
Q There came a time that in the course of the proceedings where Professor Southall had been instructed by the local authority, he indicated that he would like to see your client and her husband?
A Yes.
Q Just pausing there for a moment, was Mr M represented by separate solicitors?
A Yes.
Q Can I ask you to look please at a bundle which we have called C1 and there should be a tab within C1, towards the back, headed (gg), which may or may not be open at the page in front of you, which starts with a fax from the local authority involved in this case?
A Yes.
Q Did you receive that fax, dated 23 April 1998, from the local authority involved in the case, which told you that Professor Southall would like to see your client and her husband as part of his assessment and gave a number of dates?
A Yes.
Q Going over the page to page 2, is this an attendance note of yours. Did you speak to your client Mrs M on 23 April, trying to arrange the meeting with the timing and dates of the meeting with Professor Southall?
A Yes.
Q Turning over the page to page 3, you made an attendance on Mr McLaughlin. Was he one of the solicitors involved in this matter acting on behalf of the local authority?
A I believe so, yes.
Q Does that indicate that your client was trying to contact her husband to see if he was going to the meeting with Professor Southall?
A Yes.
Q Over the page at page 4, again on 23 April, did you then speak to your client, and at item 5, she indicated that of the dates that had been offered on page 1, which was the Monday or the Wednesday, that she would prefer to go on the Monday?
A Yes.
Q At page 5 is there an attendance trying to deal with whether your client would get a travel warrant from social services to go to see Professor Southall at Stoke, and at page 6 similar matters on 23 April, and did you then speak to your client (page 7) now on 24 April, telling her that the appointment was for Monday at eleven at Stoke and she should telephone Francine Salem to obtain a travel warrant? Who is Francine Salem?
A She was the social worker.
Q It would appear that you got a fax in whilst you were speaking to your client on that occasion about the arrangements and on page 8 it appears that you sent a copy of that fax to your client on the 24th. The letter of the 24th we see at page 9, which is a fax to your firm from Mr McLaughlin, the solicitor at the local authority, giving details of how your client should get to Professor Southall, where his department was, and that your client should contact Francine Salem to arrange a travel warrant or, if possible, a family support worker.
A Yes.
Q Then, over the page did you get another fax about the arrangements indicating that a taxi had been arranged for her rather than a travel warrant and that taxi had been arranged by the social worker?
A Yes.
Q That, it would appear from the attendance notes and the correspondence, was the only documentation that you received or conversations you had with the local authority about this meeting. Can you tell me this: was there any indication prior to your client going up to North Staffordshire that the social worker would be actually present at the interview?
A No.
Q Then was your practice as a solicitor simply to deal with care work and family work?
A Yes, I only dealt with family work.
THE CHAIRMAN: Mrs Parry, I wonder if I could ask you just to make sure you speak up. There is some difficulties with hearing at this end of the room. Thank you.
A Yes, I am sorry.
MR TYSON: In your experience at the time how usual or otherwise would it be for a social worker to accompany your client to see an independently appointed medical expert?
A Very unusual.
Q Had you come across it before this time?
A I have no recollection of it taking place, no, nor subsequently.
Q Did you attend that meeting that your client had with the doctor?
A No.
Q After that meeting were you subsequently contacted by your client?
A Yes, I was.
Q Did you see her to discuss the meeting that she had had with Professor Southall?
A Yes.
Q Did you make a manuscript note of that meeting that you had with Mrs M about the interview with Professor Southall?
A Yes, I made an attendance note.
Q If we look at page 13 to page 15, is that in your handwriting?
A That is, yes.
Q Is that a note you made whilst Mrs M was in the room with you?
A Yes. There may have been more in the note but that is all that is being put before me.
Q Did you subsequently dictate an attendance note relating to that meeting, which we see at pages 16 to 18?
A Yes.
Q Do we see on page 18 that the attendance took about an hour?
A Yes.
Q Mrs M was with you for about an hour and you took, as it were, two and a half pages of manuscript note, picking out aspects of that attendance?
A Yes.
Q Can we just go back to page 13, please, and can I seek to read it and you correct me where I have got it wrong. Does it say:
“Went in & found Francine was there, & I asked her what she was doing there.
He kept saying to me I know this is going to be very painful as I have to ask Q’s [questions]
He got me 1st of all to draw a picture of the upstairs of the hse …”,
and gives the address,
“as he wanted to get it clear from my mind how could I see through from the toilet into the bedroom.”
Is that your “how”?
A Yes, correct.
Q Then:
“I did this, he wanted me to tell him where the position of the bed was before & after, how long the curtain rail was & how thick was, how it was fixed in. I said it was screwed in. He then wanted to know if it was my belt [as opposed to the eldest child’s]. I told him it was [the eldest child’s]. He insisted it was too. I told him it was [the eldest child’s], asking me how many holes. I told him I didn’t know [or don’t know] or what width it was. He then x-examined me accusing me of lying that the pole didn’t break. I answered them as best I could, he asked how I got on with Dora Black and asked if I could get my …”,
and then I am struggling with the next word, Ms Parry?
A Well, I cannot read it either, I am afraid. It is “(something) at work.”
Q Can we just keep a finger in there and go to your attendance note and look at page 17 in the second paragraph, where it says:
“He was asking how she had got on with Dora Black and asking how she could get her hands on drugs from work.”
Then if we go back to page 13:
“…asked if I could get my (something) …”,
and I was wondering if that word might be “hands” or whatever, whether it is elliptic for “hands on drugs”, which you subsequently dictated out.
A Yes, because I would have dictated it straight away.
Q So it may be that that is a shorthand for, “asked if I could get my hands on drugs at work.”
“I told him I wasn’t a nurse, asking me if I’d seen the anaesthetist saying I would know how to inject s’one.
He said did I know no toxology report, he mentioned about [Mr M] going to prison after [something] assault.
[Child M1] was cremated.
He questioned me about the bullying, he said serious allg [allegation] …
[M1’s] accident with scold”,
I think that might be.
“He was looking at Francine, who just stood there smirking. He said if it can’t be proven.
He asked if I’d spoke to any of the other children about committing suicide. I said no, he asked
At end he said you don’t like Mrs Stones.”
Just pausing there, was that the class teacher?
A Yes, I believe so.
Q “He only questioned ….. about [the youngest child] was about the bruise at 9 months old – I can’t remember.
He said if nobody can prove that [the eldest child] did or didn’t kill himself through bullying.
He suggested that I kill him and that I either suffocated him, drugged him and then hung him.
He eventually pressurised me.
He said it was very” – is that “comments”?
A I cannot read it.
Q Over the page:
“…she’s been questioned by [the youngest child], he’s asking why is there a court hearing in May, and what happens after that, he’s saying he doesn’t seem to know that there is still an application for a care order, and is unhappy he hasn’t been told.”
Then you dictated an attendance note. How soon after seeing the client would you have dictated the attendance note?
A Very soon after. Within hours probably.
Q We can see the dictation of that note starting at page 16. You record that:
“She was very upset ….. when she attended the interview with Professor Southall. She went in and found Francine Salem ….. sitting there.”
I do not know how much independent recollection you have got of this matter, Mrs Parry, but was she upset when she saw you?
A I cannot remember, I am afraid. It is a long time ago.
Q Is your recollection of this matter principally based on the handwritten notes and the attendance note which I am about to take you to?
A Well, I did recall, before seeing these notes, the incident, and that she was upset.
Q You say that she was upset. Do you recall what she was upset about?
A She was upset because she was being accused of murder really, and she had gone to the interview expecting it to be a medical examination.
Q Just going through your attendance note, your dictated attendance note on page 16:
“She went in and found Francine Salem was sitting there. When she asked her what she was doing there she said I am here on the same basis that another social worker was present with Dora Black. She said well she was not there at any of the medicals when she spoke to Dora Black but she just shrugged her shoulders and stayed.”
Just pausing there a moment. “She just shrugged her shoulders and stayed”, is that in relation to what Francine did?
A Yes.
Q Now we are getting back to your client, Mrs M:
“She said that throughout the interview Professor Southall was saying that he knew how painful these questions were.
He asked only one question about [the youngest child] and that was something to do with an injury when he was 9 months old which she could not remember about.
First of all he got her to draw a picture of the upstairs of the house [the address there given] as he wanted to get it clear in his mind how she could see from the toilet through to the bedroom. She said that she did this.
All his questions and investigations were about [the oldest child] and he wanted to know the position of the bed and where it was before and after, how long the curtain rail was and how thick it was and where it was fixed in and how many screws were screwed in. A lot of this she said she tried to reply as best as she could and he then started saying that it was her belt. She said that she had never had a belt and she thought it was [the eldest child’s]. He asked her how many holes were in it and she did not know. He wanted to know what width it was. He was more or less cross examining her and accusing her of lying and that the pole could have broken with her weight and her son’s weight it would have been over 20 stone. She said she answered the questions as best as she could and she said that she was not prepared to show how the belt was tied because of the continuing questions and telling her that her solicitors had improperly advised her.”
Just pausing there. Is that Professor Southall telling her that her solicitors had improperly advised her?
A Yes.
Q “He was asking how she had got on with Dora Black and asking how she could get her hands on drugs from work. She said that he seemed surprised when she told him that she could not as she was not a nurse. He seemed to think that she should know how to give injections but she said that she did not as she did not even watch the anaesthetist doing it as she was at the other end of the patient.
He wanted to know if she knew that there was no toxicology report and she said that she did not.
He had been cremated she told me.
She was questioned about the bullying and throughout he seemed to look at Francine Salem who just sat there smirking. He was telling her that it cannot be proven that she did not kill [the eldest child].
He also asked if she had spoken to any of the other children about committing suicide and she said that she said no but she remembered that [one of the children’s] mother came to her saying that he had just tried to commit suicide and insisted that she go back and when she went he said he had not.
There were discussions about Mrs Stones and he accused her of killing [the eldest child] alright saying that she killed him either by suffocation or drugged him and then he eventually pressurised her into saying how the belt was tied and he said that it was very cleverly done.
As far as Dora Black was concerned on reflection the interview went really well with her and Mrs Black’s view was that she would try her best for them.”
Then you indicate that she said that the interview itself took about an hour with Mrs M. You said that Mrs M was upset about the accusation that she had murdered the eldest child. When she was with you, was she tearful?
A That is what I cannot remember. I cannot remember if she was crying.
Q You can remember that she was upset?
A Yes.
Q Following that interview did you write to the local authority about the presence of the social worker, going to page 19?
A Yes.
Q This is a letter by you to the local authority of 6 May 98, saying that:
“Our client attended the medical appointment which was requested of her with Professor Southall and from our instructions it would seem that she has been subjected to this medical with your Social Worker Francine Salem being present.”
Just pausing there a moment. Have you any comment on the use of your word “subjected” there? If you have not, do not worry.
A It would have been because my client objected to it.
Q “We should be grateful to receive a full explanation as to why this was the case.
We also require full disclosure of the written notes that Francine Salem took throughout the medical interview.
May we therefore please have your confirmation that these notes will be supplied within the next seven days. May we also please have an explanation as to why our client was expected to attend for a medical and we were not notified that Social Workers would be present throughout taking notes.”
Did you get a letter in response to that dated 13 May, we are now on page 20, from the local authority solicitor:
“Thank you for your letter …..
I would first of all correct your assertion that this was a medical appointment with Professor Southall that your client attended. As you are aware Professor Southall is one of the experts appointed by the Court and instructed by the Local Authority to prepare a Report and that indeed this was not a medical appointment but an interview.”
Did you understand what the local authority was saying in that sentence?
A No, I did not.
Q “I understand from the Social Worker that she was requested to remain in the meeting by Professor Southall at his request. I understand that your client did not object. If you wish to have a formal explanation I can only suggest that you cross examine Professor Southall to explain why the Social Worker was required to sit in on the interview with your client.”
Did you regard that as a proper explanation as to why the local authority social worker was present?
A No, I did not.
Q “With regard to the disclosure of the written notes I can confirm that the Social Worker did take some notes and she informed your client that she was doing so. I should be grateful if you could let me know as to why disclosure of these notes are deemed relevant as it is not the practice of Social Services to disclose notes or materials from the Social Work file.”
Did you reply to that letter, page 21, on 15 May?
A I did, yes.
Q “Thank you for your letter …..
Our client does object to the Social Worker being present at a medical interview or whatever you may wish to call it.
We consider that the notes taken by the Social Worker are within the ambit of documents to be disclosed and we seek these. Will you agree to their disclosure within fourteen days? If not we will seek directions from the Court for their disclosure.
You should have now received from Messrs Wace Morgan Solicitors” – are those the solicitors acting for Mr M?
A No, they were the solicitors representing the child.
Q “…the report of Professor Stephenson. When may we expect to receive the reports from Professor Southall and Professor Bentovin although are we right in our assumption that you are not instructing Professor Bentovin because of the joint instructions to Dr Black?
We still await Dr Black’s report but have received a report from Dr Solomon…”
Did you get a reply to that on 18 May 1998, which we have at page 22?
A Yes.
Q From the second paragraph, “I enclose a copy of the social worker’s notes”, and just turning over the page, is this the typescript document on pages 23-26 that you got?
A I believe it is, yes.
Q In fact we can see, by doing some minor detective work on the top right hand corner, the fax numbers, which seem to be consistent running through.
A Yes, that is the fax number of my firm of solicitors.
Q In that letter did it also confirm that Professor Bentovin was not being instructed by the local authority because in a sense they joined in the joint instruction of Dr Black?
A Yes.
Q Was there that discussion about the timing when Professor Southall’s report could be obtained?
A Yes.
Q Then did you see your client on 19 May, turning to page 27? Do you have page 27 in the notes before you?
A I do, yes.
Q Was that “Consideration and reading the notes from---“
A Yes, I would have read the notes on 19 May.
Q Yes. These notes that we see on pages 28-29, just pausing there, would they relate to your two units reading the notes, or going to page 30---
A They would have related to the time when I saw Mrs M about them.
Q If we go to page 30, do we see that you attended your client on 3 June for some 90 minutes – which we see at page 32?
A Yes.
Q The manuscript notes that we have at pages 28 and 29 would be relating to that attendance on 3 June, would they?
A Yes.
Q You told us that the manuscript on page 28, where it says,
“(1) The belt description was correct. I didn’t describe the pole as having 2 brackets”,
does that arise out of consideration of what Miss Salem was saying in her note?
A I believe so, yes.
Q Then it says,
“Doesn’t want to discuss the judgment”.
By that time had there been a four-day hearing in front of His Honour Judge Tomkin which enabled the youngest child to come back home?
A I have not got the file in front of me, but I suspect that that is the case, the child had been returned home at this stage.
Q We know, because we have seen a document which is our C4, that the child was in fact returned on 10 March 1998, but I do not know at what stage thereafter you would have got a transcript of the judgment for you to go through with your client. You discussed various other aspects of the case and the case preparation at page 28. On 29, by that time it would appear that Professor Southall had produced a report and you say, on page 29,
“Re Southall’s report, she didn’t like it”.
A Yes.
Q Is there then a comment on what Miss Salem’s report was saying?
A Yes.
Q Then we have,
“Re M1 speaking to the two boys who said M1 has said he was going to kill himself although she hadn’t spoken to them herself, merely wanted to make it clear she only found out about it on the day of the inquest”.
Then it says,
“We went to the handwritten notes”.
Would those handwritten notes be the contact sheets?
A They would be Miss Salem’s handwritten notes that she took at the time of the interview.
Q Does it say,
“We want the handwritten notes”?
A Yes, we “want” the handwritten notes.
Q Because hitherto you only had the typescript which we referred to earlier.
A Yes.
Q It continues,
“Never told her about four occasions, about suicide threats, that’s not correct. Also various statements which incorrectly translated or which she never said – she’s written things down as she wanted to hear them. She never said she’d be pleased and talking about it if she cleared her name. Many words are those of Professor Southall and not of Mrs M”.
You deal with your attendance note which you made subsequent to this attendance, and you deal with matters that this Panel is concerned with in the second paragraph,
“As far as the belt description is concerned in Francine’s notes apparently it was correct but she said that she did not describe the pole as having only two brackets as it had three brackets”.
Then there are other matters relating to other aspects of the case. Half-way down page 31,
“As far as Professor Southall’s report was concerned she did not like it. We started to go through it but it would seem pointless.
She said that there were a number of mistakes which she did not like contained in Francine’s notes. First of all, these were not verbatim and some of the information was incorrect. It was also missing from what various people said.
Re [the eldest child] speaking to two boys who said that he was going kill himself, although she had not spoken to these children herself, Mrs M wanted to make it quite clear that she only found out about it on the day of the inquest.
She wanted me to ask for the handwritten notes as she did not say that she had told [the lady there mentioned] on four occasions about the suicide threats and it was just not correct.
There were various statements which were either incorrectly translated or which she never said and she had written them down on the statement which is on the file. Many of the words are those of Professor Southall and not Mrs M”.
Do you see where it says, “she had written them down on the statement which is on the file”, can I ask you please to go to what I hope is going to be in the bundle at (aa)? We have been looking at Section (gg). Just glancing through that document, Mrs Parry, you will see that there is manuscript all over it, particularly on the third and fourth pages. Mrs M gave evidence about this document and she indicated to us that this was her manuscript that she had written on these notes of Miss Salem, and that she had given the manuscript to you.
A I am afraid I cannot help you. I cannot remember.
Q I do not want to lead in any way, but if we look at the bottom of page 31 again, back to your attendance note – this is in (gg) – where it says,
“There were various statements which were either incorrectly translated or which she never said and she had written them down on the statement which is on the file. Many of the words are those of Professor Southall and not Mrs M”.
A That would make sense, certainly.
Q Lower down you record other matters relating to other reports that were there, in 31.
A Yes.
MR TYSON: Madam, that is all I intend to ask this witness. This may be a convenient time to break.
THE CHAIRMAN: I am not sure how long the cross-examination will take.
MR COONAN: Not terribly long, but there is one matter I want to raise with my learned friend about documents.
THE CHAIRMAN: Do you wish to do that in private?
MR COONAN: Certainly, yes. We can discuss it and then continue with cross-examination after lunch.
THE CHAIRMAN: Very well. It is 10 minutes to one on my watch, so we will break until 10 minutes to two. Mrs Parry, I am sure you understand that, since you are on oath, you must not discuss your evidence or the case with anyone.
(Luncheon adjournment)
Cross-examined by MR COONAN
MR COONAN: Mrs Parry, can I just ask a few questions, first of all, about the background leading up to the attendance by you upon your client? If you cannot answer these questions, because I note that you have not got a file in front of you relating to this case, please say so.
A Yes. I have no file.
Q Following the Emergency Protection Order, do you remember there being a case conference which you attended, and I will give you the date, on 9 February 1998?
A No, I do not remember 9 February 1998, I am sorry.
Q Again by way of background, do you remember when Mrs M had seen Dr Black, do you remember it being before 15 April 1998?
A Without a file, I am sorry I cannot verify those dates.
Q I do not want to be unfair. I may be able to help you with a document that deals with that. (Document handed) Please look at that document. My learned friend has seen it. It comes from a file. Does it appear to confirm that by 15 April Mrs M had already seen Dr Black?
A Yes.
Q Are you reading again from an attendance note of the form that the Panel have seen already?
A Sorry, could you repeat that question?
Q The file note is the same structure and layout as the forms that the Panel has seen already.
A Yes.
Q Thank you. That can be photocopied and handed to the Panel. Mrs Parry, you do not have a file with you. Can you help to this extent? Did your firm cease to hold a file?
A Yes.
Q Did the file get transferred to another firm? Is that what happened?
A The file was collected by my client.
Q And taken to another firm of solicitors?
A I believe so, yes.
Q So when you made your statement for the purpose of these proceedings, did you, as it were, chase after the file and extract the documents? How did it work?
A The documents were extracted for me.
Q By whom?
A The current solicitors, the General Medical Council solicitors.
Q Do you know where the file is today?
A No, I do not.
Q Just one other matter by way of background and again, if you cannot help me, please say. Do you remember that attempts, as we have seen already, were made to get Mr M to come along to this meeting with Dr Southall?
A From the notes referred to earlier on in my examination in chief, I think that was indicated.
Q Obviously Mrs M would know that attempts were being made for Mr M to come along as well.
A Yes. He was working away at the time.
Q Did it come about that the very reason he could not come was because he was working away?
A I cannot remember that, but that possibly was the case.
Q Was a firm called A W Brown & Lloyd the firm of solicitors acting for Mr M?
A Yes.
MR COONAN: Perhaps you could look at this document, and let me say straight away that it is in poor condition. (Document handed)
THE CHAIRMAN: The document referred to a few moments ago has now been photocopied and distributed and will be D3.
MR COONAN: Mrs Parry, I have handed you a document bearing the name of that firm. Does it appear to say that the husband cannot come because of work commitments?
A Yes.
Q That is correct. It does say that, does it not?
A It does seem to, yes.
Q Again, perhaps that might be photocopied and distributed. Perhaps my learned friend could see it first. (Document handed) This will be D4. It is from Social Services files. Can I move on, Mrs Parry, to the time when you did see Mrs M after her interview with Dr Southall? I fully appreciate that the status or capacity in which you come before the Panel is to give evidence as to what Mrs M said.
A Yes.
Q On 27 April do you have any attendance notes of any meeting with her?
A Is that the day she went --
Q To see Dr Southall.
A You have the attendance notes that took place.
Q I have to ask you that formally and I may well be anticipating your answer, but I need to ask it if only for the Panel to be aware of that fact. What you are saying is that there is no attendance note in relation to a meeting on 27 April, or any attendance note of any telephone call by Mrs M to you on 27 April. Look again in the section of the notes marked as (gg).
A There is actually. There is a reference to the fact that I spoke to him on 27 April by the “PS” on the letter of 27 April going out to her.
Q Yes, I want to ask you about that. You have a postscript at the bottom of the letter on page 11?
A Yes.
Q But you have no attendance note which deals with the content of the telephone call?
A Well, the letter of 28 April 1998, the subsequent letter marked page 12, indicates to me that she had phoned me and she had spoken about the appointment which upset her, because it says:
“…I wish to discuss with you the interview which you had with Dr Southall and what we should do about it at this stage.”
Q Yes. Of course, I am not disputing for a minute she might have said that she was upset. I am just concerned for the moment to establish that there is no note of what was causing her to be upset at that stage?
A There is no note that I am aware of.
Q What you have noted on page 12 on 28 April is that she telephoned your office requesting a copy of the post mortem report and a copy of the evidence from the inquest. That is what you say?
A Yes.
Q Again, I just want to establish the plain fact. There is no attendance note prior to 29 April which records that Mrs M was complaining that Dr Southall had accused her of murdering her child. Is that not right?
A Yes, that is right.
Q So the first time that we have Mrs M setting out what she says to you that Dr Southall said to her is on the 29th?
A As a written record, yes.
Q There is no record, and I want to be clear about this. Are you accepting that this is the first time Mrs M told you in any sense that Dr Southall had accused her of murdering her child, the 29th?
A No.
Q When you say “no”, what are you saying “no” to?
A I remember that she phoned me and it would have been late in the day, after the letter was going out on 27 April, and that is the reason why this letter has already been prepared by my secretary and we had to put a PS on it before it went out. That would have been very late in on the day, probably just before 5 o’clock when the post had to go, and I remember that she was upset and I remember that she was stating the accusations.
Q What, even then?
A I do remember it because it was so odd.
Q But there is no note of it?
A There is no note of it, no, but at least nobody has produced the notes.
Q It was, if I may say so, eight years ago?
A That is right.
Q It may be that the Panel might be invited by Mr Tyson to rely upon your recollection of eight years ago that this lady made a complaint actually in a telephone call on the 27th that Dr Southall had accused her of murdering her child, do you see? I am suggesting to you that at this stage you really cannot be sure that that is what she said. Is that not right? You cannot be sure now that she did actually complain in that phone call that Dr Southall had accused her of murdering her child?
A I am fairly sure.
Q You see, if she had made a complaint to you on 27 April, whatever time of the day it was, that Dr Southall had accused her only hours before the same day of murdering her child, you would have remembered that fact, I suggest, when you made your witness statement to Field Fisher Waterhouse in July of this year, would you not?
A I had not seen the file when I was contacted by Field Fisher Waterhouse, but I specifically told them about the phone calls and I had that recollection which told them to go and hunt through the files.
Q I am not disputing for a minute that you told the, in effect, to go and hunt through the files, and it would appear that they did and the product of their searches we have before us, the Panel have got, but I think in fairness to you, because it is an important or potentially important matter, that you have a look at how you put it in your witness statement you made earlier this year. Is there a copy available? I am told you may have seen it this morning.
A I have left it upstairs. (Copy handed to the witness)
Q Just to help you, I think if you look at the last page you will see it is dated 31 July of this year and signed by you, and just to help you on the topic we are discussing, it is paragraph 9, 10 and 11. Again, please take a few minutes just to read that yourself silently. (After a pause) The first point I want to ask you about is that when you were being asked about these matters in July of this year – your recollection – you did not there say in terms that Mrs M had complained on the 27th in a phone call that Dr Southall had accused her of murdering her child, do you?
A No.
Q What you do recall is that Mrs M in the phone call appeared to be very upset. That is how you remembered it?
A Yes.
Q That is paragraph 10. In fact, I am going to read it out in fairness because it would be difficult for the Panel to follow otherwise. Do you mind if I read it?
A Not at all.
Q Paragraph 9:
“I was therefore very surprised to be contacted by [Mrs M] on 27 April after the interview with Professor Southall. She told me that Francine Salem, a Social Worker, had been present at the meeting which was a surprise to me. I would not have expected a Social Worker to be present at a meeting with a medical expert.”
Paragraph 10:
“From what I can recall [Mrs M] was very upset.”
Paragraph 11:
“On 28 April 1998 I wrote to [Mrs M] and asked her to make an appointment to see me as soon as possible to discuss the interview which she had had with Dr Southall and what we should do about it at this stage. The reason I wrote this letter was she had phoned complaining about the meeting with Professor Southall.”
That is the highest it is put, you see, by you, when you were asked to recall this in July of this year. I am not disputing for a minute that she made a complaint about the meeting with Dr Southall. That may well be true and you have recorded that, and I am not disputing that. What I am focusing on is whether she complained at that time that Dr Southall accused her of murdering her child. Do you not think you might have recorded that, first of all, and secondly, actually put it in the witness statement when you were being asked about it earlier this year?
A All I can say is what I recollect. I accept that it is not in the notes from the time and I have presumed that when I stated the reason I wrote this letter was that she had phoned complaining about the meeting with Professor Southall [it] was expanded in the later note.
Q Does it come to this then, in fairness, that in terms of you recalling now the terms in which she made a complaint to you on the 27th, you cannot be sure?
A No, I cannot be sure because it is not in writing.
Q Mrs Parry, can I move on now, please, and seek your assistance with the longhand note on the 29th. We can start this at page 13 of our bundle (gg). You have very helpfully gone through this with Mr Tyson earlier and I am going to take you to the second page, page 14. You see just at the top of the page, the third line down in your writing:
“He questioned me about the bullying, he said serious allg”,
short for “allegation”,
“to …”,
and then it goes blank. Again, do you think that is – and please look at the expanded dictated version at pages 16 and 17 if you wish – a reference to the teacher who is called Mrs S? I am not going to use her name in the light of the context of this. Mrs S?
A (After a pause) I am sorry, are you referring to page 17?
Q You may well be right. I am just asking for your view?
A I am afraid I cannot help you.
Q If you look at the next paragraph on page 14 of the longhand note:
“He was looking at Francine, who just stood there smirking.”
Yes?
A Yes.
Q Again, please forgive me if you think I am being pedantic. In the typed version on page 17 you have Francine Salem sitting there.
A Yes.
Q I do not know, did she change her view? Did she say she had stood at first and then did you then translate it as “sat”? How did it come about?
A I do not know, I am afraid.
Q The next line is, in contra distinction, rather more important potentially for my purposes. Look at page 14, the third line of the second paragraph.
“He said if it can’t be proven.”
Do you see that?
A Yes.
Q Look at page 17, the fifth block of text down please? You see the sentence on the penultimate line of the fifth block:
“He was telling her that it cannot be proven that she did not kill [her eldest child]”.
Yes?
A Yes.
Q There is no “if” there?
A No.
Q You see, “if” reflects possibilities and options and scenarios, does it not, the word “if”? Yes?
A Yes.
Q But your dictated note translates it as a positive assertion by Dr Southall to your client that as a matter of fact it cannot be proven that she did not kill her eldest son?
A Yes.
Q There is a difference, is there not?
A Yes.
Q What she actually told you as per the longhand note is couched in the conditional, “if”, and that is actually what she said, is it not?
A That is what the handwritten …
Q Yes, and if you drop down on page 14 to the block of text beginning, “He said”, it reads:
“He said if nobody can prove that [the eldest child] did or didn’t kill himself through bullying …”.
Looking at the typed text please that does not appear in the typed text, does it, the “if”?
A I am sorry, which line of the typed text are you referring to?
Q Anywhere in the typed text does that conditional, or option, or scenario appear?
A No, I do not think so.
Q What she was using, when she actually spoke to you, that you recorded, was indeed an “if”, in other words an option or a scenario or a possibility, was she not?
A Well, all I can say is that these are notes, contemporaneous notes, and what is there is there.
Q So can you given an assurance, please, to the Panel that it was she who used the word “if”?
A I can only say that these were written down at that time as best as I could.
Q As being a record of what she was telling you?
A Yes.
Q Now, can I just ask you to go back, please, to the typescript at pages 16 and 17, and I am just going to go through with you to highlight a number of features of this when you came to dictate it very shortly after the interview itself. In paragraph 1 on page 16 you have recorded that Mrs M was asking Francine Salem what she was doing there.
A Yes.
Q In the fourth paragraph you have recorded that Mrs M was telling you that she (Mrs M) drew a picture of the upstairs of the house.
A It would seem so, yes.
Q Over the page at 17, on the second line, this is your dictated version, “He was more or less cross examining her”. Was that an expression of your interpretation of what Mrs M told you about Dr Southall’s approach in the interview?
MR TYSON: It is only fair, as my learned friend has been very fair throughout, to compare both versions.
MR COONAN: I am going to.
MR TYSON: Rather than surprise her on one without telling her that there is another.
MR COONAN: I fully understand that, but perhaps I can be permitted to take my own course, and we will come to it. (To the witness) I just want to ask you, at this stage when very shortly after the interview the expression “more or less cross examining her” is used, and my enquiry of you, I hope fairly, is whether that was your impression, when you used the “more or less”, of how she was putting it to you?
A I cannot help you, I am afraid. I just do not know what was in my mind at that time.
Q Because, and I think this is lying behind Mr Tyson’s intervention, if you go back to page 13, you see, about eleven or twelve lines form the bottom of page 13, in your writing, do you see the sentence, “He then [cross] examined me accusing of lying”, do you see that?
A Yes.
Q That is how you noted it there, but when you dictate it it is now translated as “more or less cross examining her”, and I just wondered whether you could help the Panel as to how it comes that the second version is arguably rather more diluted, if I may say so, than the first? Can you help us at all?
A I am afraid not, save that it was a long interview and I doubt very much if I would have made it word perfect.
Q I just wondered, you see, whether you have recorded here “more or less cross examining her”, what you have done is, as it were, recorded in the longhand note the gist of it, but then when you come to put it down in your typescript you have added in, as it were, a general feeling about it, and so it comes out as “more or less cross examining”; do you think that is a possibility?
A It is a possibility.
Q I cannot remember whether Mr Tyson asked you about this, if so forgive me, but if you go back to the bottom of page 14, the last line, again it was you recording what Mrs M is telling you, “He said it was very” something – do you know what that word is?
A I think it relates to the fact that later on in the typed version of events that it was very cleverly done.
Q Right.
A I think that relates to that comment.
Q For that, if you go to page 17, to the penultimate block of text, and you see on the last line you have recorded her saying that “he”, that is Dr Southall, “said that it was very cleverly done”.
A Yes.
Q No doubt you used your best endeavours to record really that which she was saying, and it comes out as a comment “very cleverly done”?
A It would seem to from the dictation.
MR COONAN: Forgive me one moment, Mrs Parry. (Pause) Thank you very much, that is indeed all the questions I ask.
Re-examined by MR TYSON
Q You were asked by my learned friend about the telephone conversation you had had with Mrs M on the afternoon that she had seen Professor Southall. I noted and wrote down you said, in answer to that question, “I remember she was upset and I remember she was saying that the accusation about the murder even then”, and then I noted you said, “it was so odd”.
A Yes.
Q Does the fact that you regarded that accusation as being so odd assist in your recollection as to whether she made that comment and made that accusation in that telephone call?
A Yes, I took the telephone call very seriously, but it was so late in the day that we could not do anything about it.
Q I know it was late in the day and you did not note it, or we have not seen a note, but I am not asking about whether you made a note of it; what I was seeking to say was whether as the accusation was so odd, to use your words, does that assist as to whether she did in fact make that accusation on that evening?
A Well, there was no written note of it, so it is very difficult for me to say outright that it took place regardless, but my recollection of that phone call was that she was very upset and she had briefly told me what went on with serious allegations being made against her.
MR TYSON: I have got no further questions.
THE CHAIRMAN: Mrs Parry, it is possible that the Panel may have some questions for you. Mr McFarlane is a medical member of the Panel.
Questioned by THE PANEL
MR McFARLANE: Good afternoon, Mrs Parry. Thank you for coming. Can I take you to page 14 and your handwritten note. I must say the standard of your handwriting is far better than mine. I want to look at the very last word on that page, “he said it was very”, are you able to decipher what that word is?
A I am sorry, no.
Q I mean, I do not claim to be a graphologist, or anything else like that, but when I looked at it I thought it might have said “convenient”. Do you have any views on that?
A No, not really, I am sorry, I just cannot make it out at all.
Q That is okay. Right at the very beginning you said that it was quite unusual that the social worker was at the meeting with Dr Southall which was attended by Mrs M, and that you did not know that this was going to happen prior to the meeting. If you had known that the social worker was going to be at the meeting, would you have attended the meeting also?
A Probably, yes.
Q Thank you. You have obviously spoken to Mrs M on the telephone and face to face on a number of occasions. Seeking your own professional opinion, did you think that Mrs M was prone to exaggeration from time to time?
MR COONAN: I think this is a difficult question to put, and I, with great respect to Mr McFarlane, I am not sure she is in a position to answer that.
MR McFARLANE: Thank you. I withdraw the question and I stand corrected.
MR TYSON: Well, you have only been corrected by one. In my submission, you are permitted to ask, but the weight of the answer is a matter which you, the Panel, have got to consider later. Mr McFarlane laid the trail saying that she knew this woman, and here is a professional witness who has seen a number of her clients, and lawyers tend to have a view of their clients, and in my submission the witness is allowed to deal with the answer, but bear in mind that this lady is not, as it were, a psychiatrist of whatever, the answer can be taken with such weight as is necessary, but it does not stop the answer being given to, in my submission, a legitimate question.
MR COONAN: Well, I maintain my objection, I am afraid. Insofar as lawyers may have views of their own clients, one is tempted to say, well, it might veer towards one particular view of one’s clients. It is a line of questioning which could be applied to many, many witnesses, and in my submission it really is not appropriate that that question be put. There is very little weight, if any, that could be attached to the answer in any event.
THE CHAIRMAN: We have differing views here, Mr McFarlane, and if you are seeking an answer to the question, and continue to do so, I will ask the Legal Assessor to advise us on how we should proceed.
MR McFARLANE: I should be most interested to learn the learned Legal Assessor’s opinion, please.
THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
THE LEGAL ASSESSOR: A question such as this, if put to an expert in the field, for example a psychiatrist, may well have some weight and indeed some relevance, but a question to a witness who is not in that specialist field, asking whether in her opinion somebody is prone to exaggeration would, I would advise the Panel, be unhelpful to say the least. Of course, a witness is entitled to express an opinion, but this could be applied to any witness in regard to an assessment of any other person. In those circumstances, my advice to the Panel would be that this question, although on the face of it it could be said to be an allowable question, would be in these circumstances inappropriate, and my advice would be that it should not be pursued. I should also say that of course it is really a matter for the Panel to assess in the long term whether they find the witness to be somebody who has exaggerated in the circumstances that have been put to her.
THE CHAIRMAN: Mr McFarlane, are you content, or would you like the Panel to retire to discuss it?
MR McFARLANE: I am on this occasion happy to stay corrected, I wish to withdraw the question, and I have no further questions to ask. Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN: Mr Simanowitz is a lay member of the Panel.
MR SIMANOWITZ: Good afternoon, Mrs Parry. In addition to being a lay member of the Panel, many years ago I was in fact a practising solicitor, and I just wanted to ask you a bit about these two versions of your notes, given my recollection of my own practice. If you are taking notes from a client, and the client is speaking very quickly and you want to get on, you make, and I think you used the term “as best as I could”, and then when you come to dictate it, is it right if it is not long after that you may have a better recollection of some things, and a worse recollection of others, so you get your dictated note in as best a form as you can? Is that the way you would proceed?
A Yes, that is the way I proceeded.
Q So that sometimes the dictated note is a better version, but if in the written note it is clear then you go by the written note?
A Yes.
Q So when you get on page 14 this word which could variably be deciphered as “comments” or “convenient” or whatever, you made a quick note, and when you came to dictate it you record that it was cleverly done?
A Yes.
Q Thank you. You had made the arrangements for your client to attend the meeting with Dr Southall. What did you understand the purpose of that meeting was?
A My recollection, and I stand to be corrected, was that Dr Southall had already prepared an earlier report for the ex parte order that was made before the case started.
It was really so that he could alter his opinion which he had given earlier on. Without the file I cannot really state specifically what the report was and what the specific instructions to him were.
Q I understand that. Can you say as much as whether you understood it was going to be a medical interview about medical matters?
A Yes.
Q Did you understand it to be about anything else?
A No.
Q I want to come to the evidence you gave about Mrs M being upset. Your first answer to Mr Tyson was, “I cannot remember whether she was upset when she saw me”. I made a note of that. Then when you were asked further you said, “I did recall before seeing these notes that she was upset”. I am not sure whether there is an inconsistency there or not. Do you recall when she came to see you that you saw her and she was upset?
A Yes, she was upset, but what I cannot remember is whether she was crying.
MR SIMANOWITZ: I realise you said that later, but in fact you had said before you could not remember. But it clarifies that for me, thank you. Those are all my questions.
MRS LLOYD: Good afternoon, Mrs Parry. Mrs Parry, we have had lots of references in your evidence and have of course seen the documentary evidence of the written notes and the typed notes you made of your meetings with Mrs M. I wanted to ask you, you actually became involved with Mrs M in 1998 and I believe her son died in 1996. Apart from her recalling the details of the meeting with Dr Southall, how were you first made aware of M1’s death?
A I recall Mrs M came to see me almost on the day that her second child was removed from her, so I was probably made aware of it then.
Q On page 12 of (gg) there is a letter from you to Mrs M dated 28 April which refers to her requesting a copy of the post mortem and a copy of the evidence from the Coroner’s inquest. Could you just clarify for the Panel why they were being requested the day after she had the meeting with Dr Southall?
A I suspect that this letter would have been dictated well before the 27th.
Q Are you saying that she would have asked for those prior to her meeting with Professor Southall?
A Probably, yes.
Q You said that you probably learnt about M1’s death when Mrs M came to see you about the removal of M2. Were you aware that the case had been closed by the police at that time?
A I cannot remember if it was closed.
Q Could you elaborate on that? Was there an ongoing investigation?
A I have not got the file, but it may have been re-opened, this care case.
Q Finally, your typed attendance notes on pages 16 to 18, did Mrs M ever see these for verification of their accuracy?
A I cannot recall.
Q Would it be normal practice to show these to clients or to send a client a copy?
A It is certainly my normal practice at the moment, but I am not sure about at the time.
THE CHAIRMAN: There are no further questions from the Panel, Mrs Parry, but it is possible that either counsel may have something arising out of them.
Further cross-examined by MR COONAN
MR COONAN: Just one short matter arising out of the questions put by Mrs Lloyd. Mrs Parry, you were asked by Mrs Lloyd to look at page 12, about the request for a copy of the post mortem report and a copy of the evidence from the Coroner’s inquest, and you said, as I recall it, that this would have been dictated before the interview.
A It may have been, yes.
Q Again, I do not want to be mischievous; I just want to be as accurate as possible, but the second part of that letter, if that is right, how do the last three lines fit with that?
A Because my secretary would have added another paragraph on. If she had had tapes from a previous phone call from Mrs M from a few days before, then I would say , “Add a paragraph on”, so she would alter the letter.
Q I think the point I am making is this. When one is trying to look at the structure of how things work here, even relying on normal practice or best practice and so forth, there is an awful lot of speculation as to what happened when, is there not?
A Yes.
Q That is fair, is it not?
A Reasonably so, yes.
Q Because if you look back at page 11, and that is dated 27 April, Mrs M has actually let you have a psychology report and you tell her, as of 27, that you have actually got the post mortem of the inquest asking her if she wishes to have copies. So that is on the 27th.
A Yes.
Q It remains actually that we simply do not know how the letter dated 28th comes to be structured, do we?
A No.
Further re-examined by MR TYSON
MR TYSON: I want to put two matters arising out of Mrs Lloyd’s questions. Firstly, the matter that my learned friend picked up. Looking at the letter on page 11, written the day of the interview, do you note the last paragraph,
“I hope the taxi came for you for the appointment at Stoke-on-Trent”.
Would that indicate to you one way or the other whether that part of the letter, as opposed to the postscript, was written before you knew what happened at Stoke-on-Trent?
A Yes, it must have been.
Q Dealing with another aspect arising out of Mrs Lloyd’s questions, that was whether the police re-opened the matter, could you look, please, in the same bundle at the tab after your evidence, which is (gg), at (jj)? Could you just read that for a moment.
A The letter of 3 December?
Q Yes. (Pause for reading) Have you absorbed that?
A Yes.
Q Does that assist your memory as to whether there was a re-investigation and the results of the re-investigation or review?
A Yes.
MR TYSON: I have no further questions of this witness and perhaps she can be released.
THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mrs Parry. That completes your evidence and you may be released from oath.
(The witness withdrew)
MR TYSON: Madam, I am going to call the Head of Administration at the Royal Brompton Hospital, who is Mr John Chapman. For the information of the Panel, he dealt with two of the complainants, Mrs A and Mrs H. he dealt with the providing or otherwise of their records from the Brompton point of view.
I am grateful to my learned friend who indicates that I can lead this witness. You will be receiving in relation to this witness some more material to put into your bundles, which were not in your bundles when I opened this case because, as I kept on saying, I needed more discussion on the question of accessibility before I dealt with it. My instructing solicitor understands these bundles better than I and she is not here at the moment. Perhaps we could break now to give us time to discuss these things.
THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, the Panel would like to take a break. We will take 15 minutes.
(The Panel adjourned for a short time)
MR TYSON: Madam, perhaps I can explain my new witness and also get you to put some of the material into your bundles. As I say, he is the Head of Administration at the Royal Brompton and NHS Trust. He is going to produce a huge amount of documentation relating to his side of dealings with the requests by Mrs H and Mrs A, ultimately for the whole of the SC file, if I can put it that way. It is going to take some time and I do not say it is going to be the most interesting bit of evidence that I am going to call in the course of these proceedings, but could you have in your background that I will be producing in the course of the hearing a spreadsheet which puts together in chronological form the requests from Mrs A and Mrs H, and the other side of the coin, what Mr Chapman was doing. I hope that will assist the Panel and give you a chronology.
At the moment this witness will produce a mass of documentation. Can I ask you, first, to look please at your C2 file, Section 3? In Section 3 there will be a Tab (a) and I am going to give you a Tab (b) and Tab © to insert before Tab (d) that you have already.
In relation to Patient H, could you go before Tab 3 but in the same bundle, and I am going to give you a new Section (l), (m) and (n) to put just before (o). (Documents handed)
Madam, I now call John William Chapman. Again, I am grateful to my learned friend that he permits me to lead this witness through the documentation.
JOHN WILLIAM CHAPMAN, Affirmed
Examined by MR TYSON
(Following introductions by the Chairman)
Q Could you give to the Panel you full name, please?
A My full name is John William Chapman.
Q What is your professional address?
A My professional address is the Royal Brompton and Harefield NHS Trust, which is located at the Royal Brompton Hospital, Sydney Street, Chelsea, London.
Q Are you the head of administration at the Royal Brompton and Harefield NHS Trust?
A Yes, I am.
Q Did you start work at the National Heart and Chest Hospital Special Health Authority, as it then was, which included the Brompton, in September 1987?
A Yes, I did.
Q So you started at the Brompton, albeit under a different label, in 1987 as director of planning and administration?
A Yes, that is true.
Q Then did you remain in that role until March 1994 and then in April 1994 did the Royal Brompton become an NHS trust and your title was changed to director of administration?
A Yes.
Q Then in April 1998, on the merger of the Brompton NHS Trust with the Harefield NHS Trust, did you become head of administration of the conjoined trusts?
A Yes, I did.
Q So you have been staying on the same site, as I understand it, doing more or less the same job but with a number of different titles?
A Certainly since 1994, yes.
Q Since 1994 have your responsibilities included legal services within the Trust?
A Yes.
Q Do you manage all clinical negligence and personal injuries against the Trust?
A Yes, I do.
Q Do you liaise in that respect with solicitors and with the National Health Service Litigation Authority?
A I do now and I have done since the NHS Litigation Authority was formed in 1995.
Q I am going to ask you about a patient at the Brompton who we know as Child A. I think that you are familiar with the family that I am referring to?
A Yes. I have had conversations with the child’s mother.
Q Did that child, Child A, undergo investigations at the Brompton in 1987 when Dr Southall was a senior lecturer and honorary consultant?
A Yes, and there are medical records relating to the child’s treatment at the Royal Brompton Hospital.
Q Can I ask you please to look at a document which may not be before you, and that is C5. Just to assist you, Mr Chapman, the vast majority of C5 is something known as an SC file. Did you, in the course of your involvement in these two cases, ultimately come to hear about what an SC file was? I am asking you globally, but I can take you to the documentation in due course.
A I came to certainly be aware of what an SC file was and I was certainly aware what it was in and around October 2003 when I learned about it from a solicitor employed by another Trust.
Q Have you actually ever seen an SC file?
A No, I have not. I have seen certain papers which were purported to have been in an SC file, but I have never seen an SC file myself.
Q I am going to take you to various documents within Child A’s SC file just to help us with some history. Can I ask you please to look at page 97 in that SC file?
A Yes, I have it before me.
Q Are you aware that in August 1997 the A family wrote to the Brompton Hospital requesting medical notes held at the Brompton and in particular requesting, as you see towards the end of the second paragraph, a copy of the reports made after the MMR scan performed on Child A in February 1987?
A I must say I am not aware of that. I was not even employed by the National Heart and Chest Hospitals SHA on 26 August 1987. I was working my notice with another employer at the time.
Q But you are aware that this letter was written?
A I have never seen it. I was not involved with the disclosure of the medical records of Child A until December. I believe it was December 1994.
Q You indicate that you are aware that a request was made in 1987?
A I am aware that there were requests for disclosure of the child’s records, yes, which were dealt with by my predecessor.
Q If I can deal with it globally, are you aware that in 1987, following advice that was received, no disclosure was made at that time?
A That is difficult to say. This is a long time ago and I was not there. I am aware that there were requests, I believe from the family and three previous solicitors before the solicitors I became involved with actually requested the medical records from the Trust solicitors.
Q Let us get it, to be fair to you, to when you became involved, Mr Chapman. We can put away C5 for a moment then and turn to another bundle which hopefully is in front of you, which is C2, section 3, tab (b).
A Yes.
Q Page 1 is a letter written by the firm of solicitors there mentioned, Thomson Snell & Passmore, to Norton Rose, dated 15 December 1994. Are you aware that Thomson Snell & Passmore were then representing the A family?
A Yes.
Q And that Norton Rose were your solicitors for the Brompton?
A Yes.
Q Did you receive that letter from your solicitors, which set out, as it were, a shopping list of material that was required by Thomson Snell & Passmore?
A Yes, it specifies eight items.
Q It specifies eight items, and also looking for better copies of some medical records?
A Yes.
Q Did the items 2 and 3 contain both a request for the report of the MRI scan and the scan itself?
A Yes.
Q And the report for the NMR scan and the scan itself?
A Yes.
Q Just to cut matters short, did it turn out eventually that those were one and the same thing?
A Yes, it did. Yes, magnetic resonance.
Q Did you make inquiries arising out of that letter to find the various items in that letter and did you write to your solicitor contact at Norton Rose on 18 January 1995?
A Yes, I did.
Q Which we have at page 3. Did you point out in the second paragraph of that:
“As it happens I do not have many of the documents they are seeking. I do possess images from magnetic resonance scans that were undertaken … and these are enclosed with this letter and the medical notes.”
You did not possess matters relating to the CT scan or the barium swallow?
A That is right.
Q You also made comments about the electrocardiogram reports, indicating at that time your understanding that this was a test not undertaken at the Royal Brompton?
A Yes, that is right.
Q Similarly, with electroencephalogram reports, EEG reports, you also indicated that your understanding was that those were not undertaken at the Royal Brompton?
A Yes.
Q Also, as part of the shopping list you were asked for all tapes showing multi-channel recordings?
A Yes.
Q Is it true that at that time you had no idea what a multi-channel recording was?
A No, I did not.
Q Did the multi channel recordings appear in the Brompton notes at that time?
A I believe there were references there to what recordings were undertaken, yes.
Q Was it your understanding that there were several reports on the tapes, but not the tapes themselves?
A Yes, that is what I am referring to.
Q Did you then receive a letter, which we have at page 5, passed to you by your solicitors from Thomson Snell & Passmore, apologising for their misunderstanding in respect of MRI and NMR scans and setting out what they were looking for in relation to the multi- channel recording?
A Yes.
Q As a result of the matter about multi-channel recordings, did you then write to Professor Southall, who by that time had left your hospital, on 22 March, which we have at page 6?
A Yes, that is my letter.
Q Perhaps dealing with the earlier matters which you were not able to deal with earlier, do you say in the second paragraph:
“For more than two years it was contended that insufficient information had been given by the solicitors … to comply with legal rules relating to the disclosure of medical records”,
and thus the records were not disclosed until April 1993?
A That would have been adduced from the clinical investigation file.
Q Then you indicate that in December 1994 another firm of solicitors had been instructed, and that is Thomson Snell & Passmore?
A Yes.
Q You set out at the bottom of the paragraph that they are seeking copies of the recordings made on the dates there mentioned of the breathing patterns, oxygen saturation and heart rate patterns and the like. Then you say over the page:
“The medical records contain only reports of the recordings and I enclose copies. I have been informed that you may have some records in your possession at the University of Keele relating to the treatment and care of certain children in Royal Brompton Hospital.”
Can you recall now what was the nature of your information that medical records relating to Brompton children had been taken to Keele?
A I believe, from what I can recall, that the information either came from the medical records manager who was guiding me at the time, as I had only been in that post for around nine months or so, or from the previous litigation manager, who had taken on another role in the hospital, that there were records retained in other parts of the hospital that were not in the main medical records department and therefore that I should check to make sure that there was a full disclosure. I cannot say for certain who it was. I think in all probability it was the medical records manager who had been in post quite a long time by then, but I cannot be absolutely certain now.
Q Were you surprised at the possibility that some of the medical records relating to children at the Royal Brompton should be at the University of Keele?
A I do not know whether I can say I was surprised. I certainly knew that some departments had records and retained them outside the main medical records library, where the bulk of the records were certainly kept, and that practice continues even today.
Q I think the question I asked you is were you surprised that the records had been taken out of the hospital?
A It is really difficult now to say I was surprised at the time, I have to say.
Q You wrote to him, as we have seen, and you also wrote to your solicitor on the same day, 22 March, at page 8, and you say that you had re-examined the content of the medical records and confirm that there are written reports of this multi-channel recordings, and that you had made enquiries in the medical records library for additional records and “have been informed that there are no further documents relating to the treatment of [Child A] at Royal Brompton”.
A Yes.
Q However, you had been informed that when Dr Southall had left he took with him certain records.
A Yes, I had been informed, yes.
Q Then did you receive a letter from Professor Southall, page 9, which said that he had looked through the records and had identified – this is when he was at the North Staffordshire Hospital – and had identified six multi-channel physiological recordings and indicated to you that these recordings might be slightly difficult to put on to paper form?
A Yes.
Q Did you receive a letter meanwhile on 4 May from your solicitors enquiring whether you had heard from Dr Southall, and informing you that an affidavit might have to be prepared:
“If he does not have the records in his possession, then I will need the information I requested from you ….. I would appreciate a note on the various searches and investigations carried out and a list of the people you spoke to, in order to confirm in the affidavit that we cannot trace the records.”
A Yes, this is putting me on notice effectively.
Q Yes. By this stage, in view of the enquiries made by TSP, was it clear that there were medical records, but they were not actually in the Brompton Hospital? Taking you back to page 8, your response at that time in March was that there were no further documents relating to the treatment at the hospital.
A Yes.
Q So you had been put on notice.
A Yes.
Q Then on 7 June did you write to your solicitors, page 11, and indicated that you had written to Professor Southall, in the first paragraph, and then in the second paragraph indicated that you had received a response from Professor Southall about the six multi-channel physiological recordings, and in the third paragraph indicating that you had made a number of calls to Professor Southall, and setting out the difficulties about storage of paper copies of the information that you wanted.
A Yes.
Q Were you subsequently advised by your solicitors that if Thomson Snell & Passmore did not have the paper, they would like the actual physical tapes.
A The original tapes, yes.
Q Did you then ask Professor Southall for those physical tapes?
A Yes.
Q Then did Thomson Snell & Passmore come up in July, page 14, with further matters arising out of their study of the clinical records, which they had been provided with, identifying what appeared to them to be some further gaps?
A Yes, that is right.
Q Going to page 17, meanwhile did you get a letter from Professor Southall indicating that he had sent the original tapes to the solicitors?
A Yes. This is a copy of a letter he had written to Norton Rose.
Q Then did you write, page 18, in July to Professor Southall relating to the gaps that had been identified by Thomson Snell & Passmore, asking for his assistance broadly to fill in the gaps?
A Yes.
Q Did you indicate under number 1 that the medical records department had informed you that there were no temporary records created for Child H between the dates in question?
A Yes. I would have seen the medical records manager and asked her about it, and she would have, I am certain, checked and told me that there was no temporary record.
Q Then did you on the same day inform your solicitors, page 19:
“I have enquired in the Medical Records Department to see if for some reason a temporary medical record was created ….. but have [found] that there is none. I will therefore ask Professor Southall to confirm [those matters].”
A Yes.
Q Then in August did you write to your solicitors, giving them information about the status of Dr Southall at any given time within the hospital and dealing with whether he had status to admit patients under his own name?
A Yes, that is right, yes, and the source of the information was largely Professor Denison.
Q Yes. When you had written to Professor Southall in July, on page 18, asking for, as it were, any further records that he was holding in relation to this Brompton patient up in North Staffordshire, did you get the letter, which we see at page 22, from Professor Southall on 15 August 1995?
A Yes.
Q Did that indicate to you that:
“We always kept our own medical records for all the special cases that we dealt with at the Brompton”.
A Yes.
Q Did the expression “special cases” have any meaning to you at all at that time?
A Not at the time, no.
Q Then he indicates that he has arranged for something to be photocopied and enclosed with this letter, and we see a document at page 23, which is a list. Was that a list compiled by you?
A Yes, it is.
Q That sets out the documents that you received from the Professor at the time.
A Yes.
Q That is all I want to deal with about Patient A. Can I come, please, to your dealings with Patient H, and I would ask you to look at the same file that you have in front of you at section 2, under tab (l).
A Yes, I am ready.
Q Did the hospital receive a letter dated 16 June 1994 from the solicitors Hutton’s, setting out the name of their clients, who we know as the H’s?
A Yes.
Q In particular, Child H, who is the third person there mentioned.
A Yes.
Q Setting out various allegations, for instance on page 2 in the middle paragraph, setting out allegations that:
“Our clients consider that there was negligence in the treatment [Child H] received at Great Ormond Street Hospital, Royal Brompton Hospital and University Hospital of Wales ….. We are instructed on behalf of our clients to bring a claim for damages against Great Ormond Street Hospital, Dr David Southall [in person]” and your hospital, amongst others.
A Yes.
Q Was there a request on page 3 for medical records, in the third paragraph on page 3:
“Accordingly, we request you to produce to us all surgical, nursing ….. records” and the like.
A Yes.
Q Did that firm of solicitors helpfully schedule the material that they were in fact seeking, which we see at page 6?
A Yes.
Q To put it broadly, it appeared to be a lot, if I can put it that way?
A It is certainly exhaustive.
Q Dealing with, picking it up at (5), the admitting doctor’s notes, in-patient medical notes, out-patient medical notes, the nursing kardex at (11), investigations thereafter, correspondence at (20), so clinical correspondence they were also looking for.
A Yes.
Q If you look at (23) over the page.
A Yes.
Q Have you come across a request such as that before, for the doctor’s own files relating to treatment of the patient and the type of treatment generally?
A Possibly. I cannot for certain say, but I took this to be a standard letter that a firm of solicitors would write to any hospital requesting medical records. I have certainly received similar schedules from other solicitors over the years.
Q You got the usual consent, page 8. Did Child H undergo investigations at your hospital in September 89 and March 1990?
A Yes. There is a set of medical records relating to the treatment of the child.
Q So you got this letter in 1994 from those solicitors, and did you on the same day contact your solicitors Norton Rose, page 9?
A Yes, I did. That was the standard procedure in the hospital at the time, that letters for action in relation to written proceedings would be sent to the Trust’s solicitors.
Q Dealing with the bottom paragraph on page 9, did you ask Norton Rose to act, and you say the letter seeks disclosure and you confirm that the medical case notes and correspondence with the local authority were in your possession and you had taken appropriate steps to comply with the investigations and the X-rays.
A Yes, that is right.
Q Did you review those medical records and meet with your solicitors shortly after, in late June, and give your solicitors a copy of all the medical records?
A Yes, I did. I met them on 28 June.
Q Following that meeting on 28 June, did you then write to Professor Southall on 1 July?
A Yes.
Q Informing him that you had received the correspondence and that a claim was being brought against him personally, and that you held medical records but none of the correspondence that you were also asked to provide, and the last three lines:
“I write to ask therefore that if you possess a file within the Academic Department of Paediatrics ….. with such correspondence would you please send it me as soon as possible.”
A Yes, that is right.
Q Were you chased by your solicitors as to whether you had a response from Professor Southall?
A Are you referring to JC5 on page 13?
Q No. I am referring you to the fact that you wrote to Professor Southall on 1st July, as we see at page 11.
A Yes.
Q Could you go then please to Tab (n)? Is this a letter to your solicitors, Norton Rose, dated 18 July?
A Yes.
Q It says,
“Thank you for your letter of 14 July in which you have informed me of the outcome of a conversation with the solicitor at Hutton’s who is pursuing action for damages arising from alleged negligence…After our meeting on 28 June I wrote as agreed two letters to Professor Southall at the Academic Department of Paediatrics in North Staffordshire Health Centre in respect of H and his parents. I enclose copies of both letters. To date he has not replied”.
A Yes, there was one letter concerning Child H, the other letter related to another child.
Q Thank you. That is mid-July, and then in August, page 12, did you get a letter for you to deal with from the H’s solicitors indicating that they had issued an application to the court for the documents?
A Yes.
Q Were you written to by your solicitor at page 13 in September 1994, giving you advice from your solicitors as to whether there should be disclosure or not?
A That is right.
Q We see the brunt of the advice at the bottom of page 13,
“I think the court would order pre-action discovery”.
A Yes, that is right.
Q There is a suggestion that voluntary disclosure should be given, at the top of page two of that document. Were you asked to confirm, at the end of the first paragraph,
“Please confirm that the hospital has no other documents”?
A Yes.
Q Did you reply to that letter at page 15, the letter to your solicitor agreeing that there should be voluntary disclosure of the documents in the possession of the hospital relating to this child? That is in the second paragraph.
A Yes.
Q Then dealing with matters in the various schedules attached to the parents’ application, setting out exactly what they want, as it were, a further shopping list, if I can put it that way, do you deal with the matters requested under various of the schedules, including clinical research protocols and Ethics Committee Guidance and the like?
A Yes, minutes of meetings of the Ethics Committee, yes.
Q And things like that.
A Yes.
Q Over the page, in relation to the sixth item of the schedule, did you have no correspondence between the hospital and the local authority there mentioned, and did you indicate that you had written to Dr Southall asking for the file in relation to that matter?
A Yes, and had written previously.
Q Yes. Were you then informed by your solicitors that voluntary disclosure would take place despite the fact that there were various missing matters?
A Yes.
Q About a year later, page 18, were you made aware that the H family had decided to discontinue their action?
A Yes, that is right.
Q We see that at 15 September 1995, at page 18,
“We are writing to inform you that we have lodged Notice of Discontinuance at the court”.
A Yes.
Q So you had provided such documents as you were able to provide, but the action went no further.
A Yes. The court was actually keeping us informed over those nine months of the proceedings that were taking place and subsequently being adjourned, and at times also Norton Rose would telephone me to tell me what was taking place as well.
Q Can I move on from 1995 to 2000? Can I ask you, please, to look at the next tab, which is Tab (m)? You see that that is a letter, I think we heard in evidence, from Mrs H to you.
A It is signed by Mr and Mrs, but yes.
Q Can you recall that you received that letter?
A I did receive it, yes.
Q Had you had a telephone conversation with Mrs H?
A Yes, I had had a telephone conversation with her.
Q We need not go into what was in the telephone conversation, but did she enclose the document that she had been talking about and you did not know what she was talking about in actual fact? Did she enclose that document on the same page as this?
A Yes, that is right.
Q In the course of the conversation, can I ask you this, had she drawn your attention to the fact that in the top right hand corner of the document, she had found something which she called an “SC number”?
A Yes, she did. I did make a record of that conversation.
Q Was she asking you in that conversation, before she sent you this, what an SC number was?
A I believe so. I would like to refer to the file note but I am fairly certain that she did ask me what the SC number stood for.
Q Would that be in your own files?
A I did send it to Field Fisher Waterhouse. They asked me for it, but it is in my files.
Q Whilst that is being looked for, your recollection is, and you have a note to that effect, that some time prior to you getting the letter that we see at Tab (m), you had had a conversation with Mrs H and one of the matters that she had brought up was the question of broadly, “What was an SC file?”
A Yes, that was one of the matters.
Q As a result of that telephone conversation and that subsequent note that you got from Mrs H, did you reply to her, going back to the previous section, which we see at page 19?
A Yes, I wrote to her. That was in response to another conversation.
Q Can I pick it up? You are answering various of her queries.
A Yes.
Q Can I pick it up in the last paragraph on page 19? It says,
“When you wrote to me you also enclosed a copy of a report on respiratory recordings dated 27 September 1989. This includes Child H’s hospital registration number and another SC number ‘2026’. I am sorry to say that I do not know what this number refers to”.
A Yes.
Q The letter continues,
“You confirmed to me that it is not child H’s registration number at Great Ormond Street”.
A Yes. I probably asked her if it could be.
Q Until 16 May 2000, Mr Chapman, were you aware of SC files or SC numbers?
A I had seen SC numbers but I was not aware of SC files.
Q As Head of Administration at your hospital, do you feel you should have been aware of SC files being held, or files being held on patients of yours in order to comply with your statutory obligations about disclosure of records?
A I was not responsible for the operation or management of the medical records department. I was remote from that.
Q So you cannot answer.
A I cannot answer the rest of it, no.
Q Did you then, in July – page 21 – send her a copy of such notes that were held on the child at the Royal Brompton Hospital?
A Yes.
Q Can I ask you, please, to look within Tab (k), which is earlier on in this bundle? That brings us forward from 2000 to 2002, and can I ask you to look at page 19? When it says there in the first paragraph,
“I wrote in my letter of 16 May I did not know what SC2026 refers to”;
bearing in mind I have just been referring you to a letter of 16 May 2000, should we read into that 16 May 2000?
A I think that is right.
Q It is page 19 in the next tab. Do you see that?
A Yes.
Q At the bottom of page 19 you say you do not know what SC2026 refers to.
A Yes.
Q So when you are writing in 2002, should we take the reference in the last sentence of the first paragraph,
“I wrote in my letter of 16 May”,
to mean 16 May 2000?
A Yes. I did say in the next sentence,
“as far as I have been able to establish in the past two years”.
Q Yes, and then you set out your understanding since that date, as it were.
A Yes.
Q You say,
“SC2026 appears to have been applied by the Department of Paediatrics (Clinical Physiology) of which Dr David Southall was head until July 1992. It appears only on reports by this Department. I can see no other use of the reference in any other documents in Child H’s medical notes. It does not feature in any of the social Services documents so I am certain it does not refer to ‘social care’.
A Yes.
Q Can you help us with the reference to “social care”?
A I think that one of the points going through my mind at the time was whether or not it was a social services reference.
Q Did you go on to tell Mrs H, in the middle of the next paragraph,
“The NHLI Academic Department undertakes medical education and research into heart and lung disease in infants and children. My enquiries in the Academic Department of Paediatrics for further records of Child H’s treatment and care revealed nothing. I concluded that Dr Southall could have taken further records to North Staffordshire Hospital. Your letter informs me that your enquiries to North Staffordshire Hospital found that Professor Southall held a file about Child H there”.
A Yes.
Q We heard from the lady yesterday and she produced the letter from the North Staffordshire Hospital indicating the discovery of the SC file 2026 in that case. Just one last matter in relation to your evidence. I would like you to look at page 21 in Tab (k). This is a letter from the Director of Service Improvement at the North Staffordshire Hospital NHS Trust. I do not know if you have seen that before so perhaps you would just read it to yourself, and then I want to ask you one question about it. (Pause for reading)
A Yes, I have read it.
Q Are you aware that after June 2002 any further material was sent by the North Staffordshire back to your hospital?
A No, I was not.
Q Has there been?
A I do not know.
Q One last matter, is it right that you very helpfully came today with a huge amount of original files, which I see are by your right knee? Is it right that you have kindly permitted both Professor Southall’s barrister and myself to look at those overnight if we have to?
A Yes. I have no objection. I will leave them here.
MR TYSON: Madam, on that rather informal note, can I say that, subject to anything that I see if and when I have an opportunity of looking at those files, that concludes my examination in chief. I am perfectly happy for my learned friend to cross-examine, if he would like to cross-examine on the same proviso that he would also like to look at the original material in those files.
THE CHAIRMAN: Are you saying you would like to return to us with questions for the witness if that becomes necessary?
MR TYSON: I do not know because I have not been able to go through the exercise of going through the enormous amount of files that this witness has brought. I hope that I do not have to, but I am leaving open the possibility that I do.
MR COONAN: Madam, I was well aware that these files existed today because I was shown them at 20 minutes to two. When I say I was “shown” them, I was shown the fact that there was a pile of them and both Mr Tyson and I became aware of the fact that they were there, but neither of us have had an opportunity of actually looking at them. The Panel have already heard Mr Chapman – it is no criticism of him – refer to these as file note conversations. I have not seen those and I think that, out of an abundance of caution if nothing else, I ought to have a look at the files to see if there is any material which sheds any light on the issues which are presently before the Panel. I ought to do that, in fairness to Dr Southall, and indeed, frankly, in fairness to the shape and content of my cross-examination do that before I even cross-examine. I think that, if I may say so, I would wish to hear if there is to be any more examination-in-chief before I cross-examine, so I am inviting Mr Tyson to look at these documents before I cross-examine.
THE CHAIRMAN: Mr Tyson?
MR TYSON: That is a very fair invitation for my learned friend to make. I do not think I can read all those documents in the time that we have available before we have to rise tonight.
THE CHAIRMAN: I am suggesting, if this course of action is acceptable, then the Panel would rise now till tomorrow morning. Is that acceptable to both of you that we should proceed that way?
MR TYSON: Highly acceptable.
MR COONAN: Madam, it is; it is indeed. Can I just say at the moment that I do not have a great deal to ask Mr Chapman, so he should not, I think – if I can say this through you, madam – worry unduly about getting to his board meeting at 12 o’clock. Obviously, one does not know what is in Pandora’s Box, but subject to that we will try with expedition to make sure he is away.
THE CHAIRMAN: It would appear to make sense that we rise now and that will give you the opportunity to peruse the documentation. Is there still a request for an early start? I think it was mentioned earlier.
MR COONAN: Could I just make this observation? Of course, Mr Tyson would prefer, I am sure, to look at these files, and it would seem sensible at least for him to look at them first. That may take a little time. We would then have to look at them after he has, together with Ms Ellison. I, for my part, am in your hands. If you wish to sit earlier to morrow morning, then so be it.
THE CHAIRMAN: The answer to that is the Panel is willing to listen to a request, but we would normally sit at 9.30 unless requested otherwise, either to sit earlier or later.
MR TYSON: My request is 9.30.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is that acceptable to you? Would that give you both time?
MR COONAN: I support Mr Tyson.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does that give you time to look at the documents? If you have not had enough time you can apply for more time at 9.30.
MR COONAN: I am very grateful. We will make time and try and do it. If there is a real problem we will let you know.
THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. We will rise now and we will reassemble at 9.30 tomorrow morning. Mr Chapman, I should remind you that you are now on oath and remain on oath overnight, so you must not discuss your evidence in the case with anyone.
THE WITNESS: I understand that, Chairman, and thank you.
(The Panel adjourned until 9.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 22 November 2006)