GENERAL MEDICAL COUNCIL
FITNESS TO PRACTISE PANEL (PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT)
Friday 9 November 2007
Regent’s Place, 350 Euston Road, London NW1 3JN
Chairman: Dr Jacqueline Mitton
Panel Members:
Mrs Leora Lloyd
Mr Alexander McFarlane
Mr Arnold Simanowitz
Legal Assessor: Mr Robin Hay
CASE OF:
SOUTHALL, David Patrick
(DAY EIGHTEEN)
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 JOLLIFFE 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
FRANCINE BEVERLEY SALEM, continued
Cross-examined by MR TYSON 1
Re-examined by MR COONAN 43
THE CHAIRMAN: Good morning everyone. We had got to the stage where Mr Tyson is about to cross-examine the witness.
Cross-examined by MR TYSON
Q Good morning, Miss Salem.
A Good morning.
Q I represent Mrs M, as you well know. Just as a preliminary matter: you will remember you produced a handwritten note of the appointment which my client had with Dr Southall?
A Yes.
Q You produced that a few days ago I think. I see you nodding rather embarrassedly, and I can ---
A Very embarrassedly, yes, I am afraid.
Q I think you would accept, would you not, that Field Fisher Waterhouse, solicitors for Mrs M, had been seeking material from your authority for some considerable time, including your note?
A Yes.
Q They had specifically asked in relation to your note and they were told by the solicitor that he assumed that it had been destroyed.
A And under normal circumstances it would have been.
Q Also in a subsequent letter he said he had specifically discussed it with you – I am looking at a letter from your local authority on 11 November 2005, and Mr Collard, who is a solicitor in your authority, is he not?
A Yes, he is the principal solicitor.
Q He said:
“I have now had an opportunity to check with Francine Salem and she has confirmed that any handwritten notes that she took at the meeting would have been discarded once these notes had been typed up. Sorry I can’t help you further on this.”
When you were asked specifically by the solicitor to look for the notes, “Mrs M’s solicitors are giving me grief” as it were, “about this”, did it occur to you to go back and look at the box?
A It occurred to me to look at the file, yes.
Q But did it occur to you to look at the boxes?
A No, because it would not logically be in the box where it was; it was not with the files.
Q Your first involvement in this case was about 20 January 1998, we can see that from the contact sheets. (Witness nods) As a result of that you made the various investigations that you went through with Mr Coonan yesterday, and we looked at your contact sheets with various people that you contacted to find out about, as it were, the M family, is that fair?
A Yes.
Q In your investigations, can I ask you, please, to look at bundle C1 at tab c, you came across, did you not, this chronology relating to the events surrounding the eldest child, M1? Do you recall coming across that and studying that?
A Yes. We did not get it straightaway, but, yes.
Q This was a part 8 review, was it not?
A Yes.
Q But you had it by the time that you wrote to Professor Southall, as he then was, later that month.
A Yes, we would have done, yes. I think it was the 23rd.
Q If you look at tab a ---
A 23 January, yes.
Q At item (b) in that letter you included a chronology.
A Yes.
Q I want to ask you about how Mrs M was perceived. Would you look at the entry for 1 October 1995. We see a note there that:
“[M1’s] mother is very concerned at [M1’s] attitude at home. He refuses to take home spellings and tables to learn and is very awkward about reading at home. She is obviously very keen to help [M1]”.
Did you note that when you were doing your investigations?
A Yes, I noted it all.
Q The third entry down on page 366, 29 November 1995 dealing with M1 being difficult in class: did you note the entry that “Mum is very supportive”?
A Yes.
Q Over the page at 367 we see the entry, and did you note at the time the entry, for 3 June 1996 where it says, “[Mrs M] apologies …”, do you see that?
A Yes, we noted it all.
Q “[Mrs M] apologises for a story …” and had told M1 off about an incident at school. It is clear from that, is it not, that the mother was pretty supportive of the school, very supportive of the school at that time, did you note that?
A We did note that she had a lot of contact with the school, yes.
Q We can see that further, can we not, in your contact sheets at tab d, page 372? Just above the bottom hole, it says “In December 1997”, do you see that?
A Yes.
Q “In December 1997 [Mrs M] contacted school asking how best to support [M2] in class because he was under achieving …”
Again, this shows that she is supportive of the school and concerned about both those children.
A Sorry, which “both children”?
Q Sorry, I was doing it globally: at that time she was supportive of the school in terms of M2.
A Yes, in December 1997, yes.
Q And the earlier entries I showed you show that she was supportive of the school and the school had good reports about her in relation to M1?
A Within the Part 8 review, yes.
Q Would you then go to tab i? At page 418 is the statement of the head teacher of the school where M1 was attending.
A Yes.
Q Would you look at page 428, page 13 of the statement, the last paragraph of that:
“Although I remember [M1] as a boy who seemed to experience mood swings, and although I have been aware of some difficulties at home at times, it always seemed to me that [M1] was extremely well supported by [Mr & Mrs M] and teachers and support staff at school. It would be helpful if all parents could show the same level of interest and positive support for their child and be prepared to work with the school as [Mr & Mrs M]”.
Did you note that ---
A I did note that, yes.
Q Again, at tab j, page 430, is the statement of M1’s class teacher. Would you turn to page 438, the middle section between the two holes:
“Mrs M was obviously a very caring and concerned parent with whom I kept up a regular dialogue, as we both wanted the best from [M1]”.
A Yes.
Q Did you note that? Again, on this aspect, at page 442, did you note at the third line down from the top:
“Over the year [Mrs M] was a concerned parent who kept up a continuous dialogue with the school.”
A Yes, we note it all.
Q So the picture on reading those matters, Miss Salem, is of a concerned parent who wants to do their best for either M1 or M2 and is also – I see you nodding, for the sake of the transcript – someone who is supportive of the school’s efforts with each child, that is also right, is it not?
A I think from the extracts that you have taken you could say that, yes.
Q Also, if you look at the Part 8 material, at tab m, page 3, this, as I think you told us earlier, the Part 8 is an inter-agency look at the situation to see if there was anything “we could have learnt or improved”?
A Yes.
Q Did you note when you were doing your initial inquiries, paragraph 4 on page 3 which reads:
“Whilst the number of attendances at the local accident and emergency unit was slightly unusual, none of the attendances in themselves were serious and there is no indication that these were anything other than accidents.”
Did you notice that conclusion?
A Yes.
Q Also, on page 4, under Section E, when all the various agencies were asked for their input, as it were, did you note No. 4:
“The recommendation of the West Mercia Police Force: that there are no issues arising from their involvement with [M1] and his family.”
A Yes.
Q So, is it fair to extrapolate from that, that at the time of the Part 8 review that the police were not seeking to challenge or complain about the result of the inquest?
A Do you mean that they were not going to challenge the verdict?
Q Yes. It was never suggested at the inquest, was it, that there was any issue of possible murder of the child M1?
A No.
Q We can see there it says that no issues arising from their involvement, so it is a fair assumption, is it not, Miss Salem, that they were not thinking at this time in terms of “perhaps it could have been murder” or matters like that, the police were not thinking?
A No, they were not.
Q Can I take you to tab b, pages 361 and 362? Page 361 is a list of attendances at the hospital by the youngest child.
A Yes.
Q Page 362 is a list of attendances at the hospital by the eldest child.
A Yes.
Q Can I put three propositions to you in relation to those matters and see if you agree with them: first of all, in FII cases, or MSBP cases if I can put it that way, it is rare that the suspected abuser induces accidents or trauma, do you accept that as a proposition?
A I do not fully accept it, no.
Q Well perhaps I can add as a parenthesis that when I put these matters to Dr. Southall he did accept it?
A I am sure he might have done but I do not.
Q Would you accept as a proposition that as a child gets older, if one is saying that these matters are induced by a proposed abuser it would need some co-operation from the child?
A As the child gets older, yes.
Q And with your experience of dealing with non-accidental injuries in the course of your work it is fair, is it not, that these injuries here on pages 361 and 362 are not typical non-accidental injuries?
A They are not typical non-accidental injuries, but the issue we were making was the explanations for them.
Q Yes, and dealing with the explanations throughout one of the issues or the m ain issue was that no explanation had even been sought by the admission casualty officers?
A Yes.
Q I suggest to you that in relation to those injuries, because of the fact that as it were trauma accidents are rare in MSBP cases and these children are older and the injuries are not typical non-accidental injuries the combination of those three means that looking at the injuries they do not fit the pattern, do they, of MSBP injuries?
A I think it needed to be explored; I do not think you could make that statement without having at least explored it.
Q We have seen now the investigations that you carried out, this is really at the early stages, did the idea that this could be – I think the words used at the time – “parentally induced”, did that come to you from Miss Gray?
A It did come from the hospital, yes.
Q And was it she who put you in mind that this could be a parentally induced matter?
A No, it was not Miss Gray, no.
Q Was it she who said to you; “this could be possible, and I have got a friend, Dr. Southall, who could help”?
A It was not Miss Gray who contacted our department, if that is what you are meaning, who made the initial referral to us, it was not Miss Gray?
Q In terms of dealing with the investigations in the early stage it is right, is it not, that you came into contact with Miss Gray?
A Yes, but it was not Miss Gray that made the initial referral or initially suggested that it may be an MSBP.
Q Yes, who did originally suggest it could be?
A It was a Mrs Bickley.
Q And who is Mrs Bickley?
A She is the head health person who oversees all the health visitors, and responsible for CP.
Q At the hospital?
A No, not at the hospital, no, with the health authority.
Q But she had been in discussions, had she not, before she contacted social services with Miss Gray?
A Yes.
Q We can see that from the note that we were introduced to yesterday, Mr. Bartley’s original note?
A Yes.
Q And how did the question of contacting Dr. Southall come about? Did that come through Miss Gray and/or the hospital?
A I honestly cannot remember that much.
Q We heard in evidence that Dr. Southall volunteered it, that there was a connection between Miss Gray and Dr. Southall in that Miss Gray’s husband was, or had been at one time, the Chief Executive of North Staffs and knew Dr. Southall?
A Oh, right.
Q Can I put it this way, did the suggestion that you should use Dr. Southall come from, as it were, the hospital end, if I can put it that way?
A I honestly cannot remember. I would be hazarding a guess, but I cannot remember.
Q You told the Panel yesterday that you personally had never dealt with an MSBP case before, and as a professional doubtless it was going to be “professionally interesting” – if I can put it this way – to deal with such a case, if you have never dealt with one before. Would you accept that?
A “Professionally interesting”?
Q Yes?
A I have never thought of it like that, but I suppose so.
Q And was it not just on a professional basis, as it were, quite exciting to be involved in an MSBP case?
A I would worry if I began to find it exciting.
Q Well let us put it down as interesting, because one of the other aspects of it was it would improve your knowledge of this area, which is a matter which occasionally comes up in rural areas in social service work?
A Yes, professionally interesting, yes.
Q I want to examine your mindset you see, Miss Salem, just to be fair, to see where you are coming from on this and that is why I am asking these questions, because you must have been intrigued to learn more about, and to learn more of, MSBP?
A As with any other activity that we do we are always learning.
Q But here is a new one, and (in quotes) “quite a sexy” – if I can put it that way – area?
A I would not put it that way; I would not agree with that description.
Q Well let us come back to “professionally interesting” then. You did your interim assessment report, and can I take you back to C1 at b and you set out your areas of concern at 358, which you went through yesterday and I will take you to. Can I ask you some questions about 358, when you say: “I do not believe that the questions around the circumstances of M1’s death have been answered” let us just examine that statement for a moment. By that time you did not have the inquest documentation and all the statements to the inquest, did you?
A No.
Q But you did have the material from the part 8 investigation?
A Yes.
Q We have been through various aspects of the part 8 material, can I ask you what led you to the conclusion that you did not believe that the questions around the circumstances of M1’s death had been answered?
A The issues around bullying, I do not think it could have been blamed on the bullying at that time, that is what I was referring to.
Q Taking that a stage further, why did you consider that the issue of bullying had not been dealt with?
A Because the teachers were clearly saying that that was not an issue.
Q But on the other hand, fellow school friends of M1 were saying that that is what he had been saying, were they not?
A Yes, but obviously the teachers had an overview.
Q The two school friends, I think, had said that on that very day M1 had been saying that he was going to commit suicide.
THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Tyson, could you keep your voice up, please. You know, I think, that the Panel sometimes have difficulties hearing.
MR TYSON: I am sorry. (To the witness): The date of this report is what? Is it the 23rd?
A I think the contact sheets say the date I wrote it, can I refer to them?
Q Yes, let us look at those together. They are in section d page 375, and it is on 21.3.98 for “Strategy Discussion written”?
A Yes.
Q So we can see that, and so three days after you hear for the first time about the M family you are saying that: “we cannot rule out the possibility of M2 being the victim of parent induced illness.” Do you see that at page 358 in b, the last conclusion you have on your report?
A Yes, I did say that, yes.
Q And what were the grounds and reasons within three days that you could come to that possibility, Miss Salem?
A I think that is clearly documented in the contact sheets of the people that I had contacted, the other agencies.
Q After you had written that report, you then made contact with Professor Southall?
A I do not know the date.
Q Let us go back to page 375 within tab d, it is just the line under the one we have been looking at?
A Yes, I am with you.
Q You see it says on 23rd March report for Strategy Discussion written a telephone call to David Southall
A Yes.
Q So you wrote your report and then you contacted Professor Southall. In relation to that telephone call there appear to be two slightly different records by you as to who suggested who to what, if I can put it that way. Can I just take you to two of them. First, whilst keeping a finger at 375, can I ask you to go, please, to tab u, which is your statement in support of the interim care order?
A Yes.
Q Can we go to page 3 of that and the second paragraph, please? Do you see it says: “At this time”, and that is going back, this is when you had done all your inquiries?
A Yes.
Q
“At this time I believe that there was a similar pattern being established with M2 as there had been for M1. I was concerned at this and contacted Professor Southall at North Stafford Hospital to request his opinion. He suggested to me on the basis of the information I had given him that he believed Mrs M had Munchausen’s Syndrome and that this would have serious implications for M2’s welfare”.
Do you see that?
A Yes.
Q And so the suggestion is that it was his suggestion that he believed Mrs M had Munchausen’s Syndrome?
A Based on the information that I had given him.
Q And then can we go back, please, to 375, and we see under the heading of 23/1/98:
“David Southall shared my anxieties and felt that I was right in my suspicions that this might be PI I Illness. He believed that we had a major child protection issue here and suggested that we needed him on board.”
Do you see as it is put this way he is, as it were, agreeing with you that it may be PII Illness?
A Yes.
Q And that in tab u it is put slightly the right way, that “he suggested to me that Miss M had Munchausen’s Syndrome”. Do you see there is a distinction between the two ways it has been put?
A Yes, but I would read that differently, that he said to me that on the basis of the information I had given him that he believe that she had MSBP, which is the same as what I have already said on 23.1.98.
Q Can I ask you this, looking at both versions of these notes: did you come away from that telephone call with the belief that it was Professor Southall’s belief that Miss M had Munchausen’s Syndrome?
A I would have to rely on the notes, I cannot actually remember the telephone call specifically.
Q That would seem to be clear, would it, from the notes and in particular your witness statement to the court where you told the court, having given the statement of truth, that Professor Southall believed Miss M had Munchausen’s Syndrome?
A That it was a possibility, yes.
Q Well it does not say “a possibility” in your statement, does it?
A I will have to take your word for that but that is certainly what was written in the
statement ---
Q Let us look at your witness statement, please.
THE LEGAL ASSESSOR: Would you let her finish the answer she was giving?
A. I have lost the point now.
MR TYSON: Can we look, please, at tab u?
A Yes.
Q And if we look, please at page 1 of tab u, for those who are unfamiliar with court proceedings you signed something called a “statement of truth”?
A A witness statement, yes.
Q “I make this statement believing what I have said in it is true”?
A Yes.
Q And you signed that?
A Yes.
Q We see that at page 1. If you then go to page 3, the second paragraph, second sentence.
“He suggested to me on the basis of the information I had given him, that he believed Mrs M had Munchausen’s Syndrome.”
A. That is what it says, yes.
Q And using those words?
A As far as I can recall; I have to rely on what was in the statement.
Q You knew by the time you contacted him, did you not, that Professor Southall had a major reputation in this field of Munchausen’s Syndrome?
A I am not sure I would use major, but I did know he had a reputation, yes.
Q And that, as it were, he was one of the top men in the field.
A One of, yes.
Q Were you pleased or flattered as it were that he in effect confirmed your suspicions that you were here dealing with a Munchausen’s case?
A I do not think flattered is quite the right word or even pleased because it is not something that you would want to happen. I would not agree that I was either pleased or flattered, no.
Q But you had had your suspicions as it were confirmed by a top man in the field, that is clear from what we have just been looking at, is it not?
A But the case is not about me, it is about the child, and your heart sinks when something like that is a possibility really, it is not about me feeling flattered, you just think oh dear.
Q Nonetheless you had come across this case and you had done three days work on it by the time of this call.
A Yes.
Q You made a call to Professor Southall who, at that time, had no material whatsoever, had he, except for what you told him?
A No, it was sent on the 23rd was it not?
Q Yes. Here he is saying to you that he believed that Mrs M had Munchausen’s, entirely on the basis of a telephone call.
A Yes.
Q That is what it amounts to, is it not?
A Yes, you could say that, yes.
Q I am saying that to you. You said on the basis of what you told him he believed that Mrs M had Munchausen’s. Let us put it this way, did the fact that Professor Southall as it were confirmed your belief encourage you to pursue the issue of possible deliberate harm to M2?
A We could not rule it out and it was certainly one of the three that was discussed at the strategy meeting.
Q If we go to the strategy meeting which is at tab o, at page 6 we see that the document that you were taken to by Mr Coonan yesterday – the hypothesis document if I can put it this way, which is at page 17 – it is recorded from then – this is the first time you are recorded as saying anything within that meeting – and this is in between the two punch holes.
“Ms Salem informed the meeting that she had grave concerns about the similarities in the boys live. The threats should be taken seriously. The hospital presentations are another concern, are they parentally induced? The presentations themselves are very unusual.”
So you are as it were taking up the baton, if I can put it this way, of parentally induced illness, fortified I suggest by the conversation that you had just had with Professor Southall. You are not answering.
A I did not realise it was a question, sorry, I thought it was a statement.
Q Perhaps I should make it into a question. It is right, is it not, Ms Salem, that you were the one at this meeting who was pursuing, principally pursuing, the parentally induced line.
A No, I would not agree that, no.
Q That is how it is recorded in the strategy meeting, that you were the one who was saying are these matters parentally induced. I see that you are not agreeing with me and it is a matter for argument, but to be fair to you, Ms Salem, I have to put that it would appear from this document that it was you who was the one as it were who was making all the comments about parentally induced.
A Sorry, all the comments?
Q I will narrow that question down. In relation to parental inducement as there put you are the one who introduces that as the item.
MR COONAN: Could you take the witness to the passage?
MR TYSON: I have taken her to the passage, with respect, it is at page 6, item 1. I read it out to the witness. I am suggesting to the witness that she was the one who was expressing principal concern in this meeting that these matters are parentally induced and you, as I understand it, say that notwithstanding what is in this thing, that is not right.
A I do not think it is right, no, and certainly I think the production of the hypotheses as the basis for the discussion of the meeting shows that.
Q We move on from that first strategy meeting and can I go, please, to tab v which is a continuation of the contact sheet, page 96. Just to help us with the timing, as I understand it the strategy meeting was held on 26 January, is that right? I am sure I am right but we can check that if required. The first strategy meeting is at tab o on 26 January; that is right, is it not?
A Yes.
Q The second strategy meeting, looking at tab r, is on 29 January.
A Yes.
Q Looking at the contact sheets at V, page 96, looking at the middle where it says “Telephone call from Professor Southall” that is on the 27th which is between the two strategy meetings.
A Yes.
Q By that time as we can see at the top of the page Professor Southall had received the papers and you had a telephone call from him where it is said he reiterated his concern for M2’s welfare.
A Yes.
Q It is a long shot, Ms Salem, and I can well understand what your possible answer is, but can you remember what was said in that call on the 27th?
A I am very sorry, I cannot.
Q On the next day you visited with your colleague Dr Southall at North Staffs.
A With my manager, yes.
Q We can see that at the bottom of page 96. Can I take you through just a few lines of that?
“Clive Bartley and myself visited Professor Southall at North Staffs Hospital to discuss this case now that he has the full information. Having considered all the information available he is still [underline that mentally] of the opinion that mother has a Munchausen’s Syndrome.”
Is that an accurate note, as far as you can recall, Ms Salem, that as it were he believed, using your words, that she had Munchausen’s Syndrome on the basis of a telephone call and here he, having seen the full information, is still of the opinion that mother has Munchausen’s.
A Yes, obviously I have to rely on the contact sheet.
Q Just to assist you in whether the contact sheet is right can we return to your witness statement a few days later at U at page 3. The fourth paragraph:
“On 28 January myself and my team manager visited Professor Southall who had opportunity to read all the relevant documentation. He confirmed his belief that Mrs M had Munchausen’s Syndrome and that she presented a high risk to [M2], it was his opinion that we should remove [M2] the same day.”
Presumably as you have used, both in your contact note and in your witness statement the word Munchausen’s, that would have been a word that Professor Southall would have used, would it not?
A I believe so.
Q It is right, is it not, at this stage as we can see, that the line that you were pursuing here was not emotional abuse but physical abuse, or risk of physical harm to the child.
A I would not agree with that because I think the strategy meeting quite clearly says we have to investigate all the aspects.
Q Yes, but the ground upon which you sought the EPO was based on possible physical harm to the child, was it not?
A The EPO has to be immediate harm, yes.
Q An EPO is a very draconian order, is it not?
A I would not agree with that.
Q You would not agree with that.
A No, if a child is at risk of life and limb and needed to be looked after and made safe.
Q It is a draconian order, is it not, that without telling the parents you get an order that you and a police officer can go round immediately and take that child away from his or her parents’ care.
A It is not an order that I have made up, it is one that is embedded in the legislation.
Q I agree but it is nonetheless fair to describe it as a draconian order, that without the parent even hearing about the application and having an opportunity to be heard the child can be taken away from a parent.
A If it means that that child is safe then I would disagree.
Q I think you would agree with me on this, would you not, that there has got to be a high degree of concern before you can even contemplate applying for an emergency protection order.
A I would agree that there is a high threshold for an EPO, yes.
Q I think you said something like danger to life and limb.
A That is the general rule as it were.
Q In this case you decided to go to Market Drayton Magistrates Court without telling the parents, without giving them any notice that you were going to apply. That is also right, is it not?
A Yes.
Q Was there any written evidence adduced to the magistrates court to support your concerns?
A I have been asked that question before and I honestly cannot remember what I took with me. The strategy meeting on the 29th suggests that I did have documentation with me, but I could not tell you what documentation I did have.
Q Did you personally give sworn testimony?
A Yes.
Q Did anybody else give sworn testimony?
A My team manager was there but I cannot remember if he gave evidence as well.
Q At that time you did not have any report from Professor Southall, did you?
A No.
Q It must have been, I suggest, on the basis of the combination of the initial telephone call you had with him and the meeting that you had attended at North Staffordshire Hospital.
A I think it is fair to say from the contact sheet that it was a multi-agency decision. It is quite clear that the police and the health were all suggesting that we remove M2, I think that is a theme that runs throughout the contact sheets, it was not any sole agency’s decision to do that
.
Q But the basis upon which you were applying was what you had learned from Professor Southall was it not?
A It was based on the information that we had given to Professor Southall, is that what you mean?
Q No, on the basis of Professor Southall’s concerns.
A And our own concern, yes.
Q Because when you a few days later drafted the witness statement which we have been through on a number of occasions – just to help the Panel, it is right, is it not, that an emergency protection order only lasts as it were seven days.
A 72 hours initially.
Q Then you have to decide whether to renew it and I think the maximum is seven days thereafter.
A Yes.
Q That is why it is easier then to apply for an interim care order because that lasts longer than an emergency protection order.
A Yes. I am not sure “easy” is the word but that is what usually would happen.
Q Effectively the main grounds you are relying on for the ICO, as we can see from page 3, are the two contacts with Professor Southall which you highlight in the second and fourth paragraphs of that witness statement.
A Sorry, you have lost me as to which tab and what you are looking at.
Q Your own witness statement which is at tab u.
A Thank you.
Q We can see that at page 3 which we have been to, and I am suggesting that the principal grounds that you were putting forward at that stage for the application of the interim care order were the Professor Southall grounds, if I can put it that way, which you highlight at paragraphs 2 and 4 of that witness statement.
A I think it sets out clearly in the last paragraph the main concerns relating to M1 are the similar patterns being regarded at A&E presentation for both M1 and M2 and that for both children bullying has and is being blamed for their unhappiness.
Q At the end of January/beginning of February you have Professor Southall’s input and you relied on that input, I suggest, in obtaining both the emergency protection order and the application for an interim care order. That is fair, is it not?
A I think there was certainly an input required, yes.
Q It is also fair, is it not, that the input was a major input in obtaining the emergency protection order because those can only be obtained if there is a high risk to limb or life.
A Yes.
Q Then you have Professor Southall’s report, and can I take you to section T in the bundle in front of you, page 184, and the advice that you received in the last paragraph. If I can read that to you:
“Information about M1’s death needs to be identified, in particular the post mortem report. For example, was any toxicology undertaken, was there any skeletal survey undertaken? All of these issues are potentially very relevant to the current situation.”
Just pausing there for a moment, did you consider that the matters that he was raising were a matter for the police?
A No, not at that time, no.
Q It is right, is it not, that the police were saying that they wanted to pursue a criminal investigation?
A That is not my understanding, no.
Q It is not your understanding.
A No, it is not my understanding because the police were reviewing their evidence before making any decision about re-investigating.
Q The police were making it clear, were they not, that this was a matter for them, that it was a police investigation rather than a joint investigation?
A That is not my understanding and certainly at the strategy meeting on the 29th there was some discussion about Mrs M being told.
Q Let me take you to the strategy meeting at tab r, page 6? Can you see in the bit between the two holes the passing saying “Dr Solomon asked …” Do you see that?
A Yes.
Q
“Dr Solomon asked whether the investigation was a joint one with social services under child protection or was it criminal, to which Steve Martin [the police officer] replied that it was a criminal investigation. The approach was a joint one but investigation of an offender [allegedly Mrs M] is done by the police.”
A Which is always the case under section 47.
Q But Steve Martin is making clear when Dr Solomon asked whether this was a joint investigation or was it a criminal investigation, the police officer was saying it was a criminal investigation.
A But when we are investigating anything under Section 47 there is always likely to be a criminal element of it.
Q Do you not see the point, Dr Solomon is asking if this is a joint Section 47 or is it purely criminal at this stage, and the police officer is saying, it is not joint Section 47, it is a criminal investigation.
A I would not accept that and I think that is a misrepresentation of the situation because any Section 47, if we are making inquiries jointly with the police, there will always be an element of a criminal investigation, and that is why we have to be very careful when we are memorandum interviewing about making sure that it is done properly.
Q It is saying that the investigation of an offender is done by the police. The investigation here of the offender, the offender there mentioned was Mrs M, was it not?
A Yes.
Q Does that not follow, if you look at the recommendations at page 7, recommendation 3, that:
“The police will be making further plans regarding possible criminal investigation depending on what information is forthcoming.”
Do you see that?
A Yes.
Q And 4:
“As part of the enquiries the police will be linking with Professor Southall …”
Do you see that?
A Yes.
MR McFARLANE: Would you read out 2 as well?
MR TYSON: I am asked to read to you item 2:
“Following that police and social services will jointly plan further child protection enquiries.”
I have already read that to you. The point is, is it not, that the police were going to be in charge of the possible criminal investigation and part of the enquiries of the police were going to be linking with Professor Southall?
A That is certainly what the recommendations said.
Q Going back, when we were looking at Professor Southall’s report at tab t/184, the last three lines which I took you to earlier, I am suggesting in view of the fact that this was going to be a police investigation, I suggest to you that these were matters to be handed over by the police (sic) to the police to be dealt with, rather than social services getting involved in it?
A I personally would not agree with that but obviously if that is what you are suggesting, I would not agree with that suggestion.
Q That was on 2 February, and can I take you to the contact sheet of 24 February, which we see at tab v/99? It is not quite clear to me whether – I think this is the second punch hole, 25 January is it?
A 25 February.
Q February, yes, I think that is what we agreed the date was when we went through it. Dr Southall returned your call, do you see that? Can I take you to about five lines down:
“Dr Southall wanted us to get the SOCO report …”
That is the scenes of crimes officer’s report, is it not?
“… and to interview the doctors that actually saw [M2] at hospital A&E to discuss the precise nature of the injuries. Also that we should endeavour to get the original letter to [the magazine]”.
He is giving you, as it were, three tasks, is he not, there?
A Uh-huh.
Q Are these tasks not appropriate for the police rather than for you?
A The only way I could have got the scenes of crimes would have been through the police anyway.
Q He could have done, could you have said “That is a matter between you and the police, the police are investigating that”? Do you see what I am putting to you generally ---
A No, I do not.
Q It is going back to the mind-set point. I am suggesting generally that you get caught up, as it were, in this FII aspect of the case, almost to the exclusion of everything else, and you and Dr Southall were together pursuing these matters when they were more appropriate police matters, do you see what I am saying?
A I would totally disagree with you. If it was a physical illness or a physical injury such as a broken limb, we would be looking at all the background, all the history. Even now, on training courses they ask us to look at the first admission – what was told by the parent to the emergency services – to look at the whole history and skeletal surveys, you know, we do get information about, we do request those, so those sorts of things, as far as physical injuries go, and I would see this as the same.
Q But you have got to put this in the context where Steve Martin is saying at a strategy meeting that this is a police investigation of the offender.
A Of course it is, but that also happens in physical injuries, we work jointly with the police. We get all the information and the police do ---
Q I have made the point, I will not go over it again. I am suggesting to you that in the strategy meeting a specific question was raised as to whether this was a joint matter and the police said, “No, at the moment it is a criminal one; we are looking at the offender”, but that is ground that we have covered before and I am moving on to something else.
There came a time when, as it were, the police decided that they were not going to investigate the matter, did there not, after the strategy when they said, “We are going to investigate it”, and you produced a document yesterday which indicated that they then changed their minds and decided not to investigate so much. Can I take you to the document you produced yesterday, D21/E, which is dated 4 March. This is a meeting between two police officers and you two members of social services. They confirm that they are not re-investigating M1’s death; they wish to speak to Mrs M regarding an ambiguity about how the belt was wrapped round the child’s neck, and they agreed that this did not constitute re-opening of the investigation. So, at that stage they were making clear, were they not, that they regarded their only role in terms of M1 as to clear up a slight ambiguity about how the belt was tied round the pole?
A Yes, that is what it says in that discussion.
Q That was all at that time that they were interested in.
A That is what it says on the strategy discussion.
Q That was on 4 March, and I think in early March there was the interim care hearing before His Honour Judge Tonking.
A Yes.
Q You were present at that, and, indeed, you gave evidence at that hearing. You were taken to some passages from the judgment of the learned judge. Would you go back to look at that document, please, which is C4, the judgment? I will not take you to too much of this because you were taken to it by my learned friend yesterday. Do you see at 4G, there is a list of factors upon which the local authority were relying? The judge sets out over the whole of page 4, from B to F, all the matters the local authority were relying on at B:
Secondly, the fact that [he] has spoken of killing himself.
Thirdly, about mood swings.
Fourthly about bullying.
Fifthly about absence from school.
Sixthly about being admitted to hospital.
Seventhly, about features of the older brother.
Eighthly, picking it up just after F: “mother’s own sickness record.”
Ninthly, the assertion that the circumstances of [M1’s] death are questionable.
THE CHAIRMAN: Mr Tyson, I can barely hear you, I am afraid. Could you speak more clearly?
MR TYSON: I do apologise. (To the witness) Looking at page 4, Miss Salem, there are 10 reasons for the local authority’s initial case set out by the judge, that is right, is it not?
A Yes.
Q At G at the bottom it says that:
“Ninthly, the assertion that the circumstances of [M1’s] death are questionable.
Tenthly, the mother’s apparent detachment after [M1’s] death”.
The judge records that these last points were not pursued in evidence. That was right, was it not, the local authority did not pursue those last two matters?
A No.
Q At page 5, the matters at D, we can see that Mrs Inwood was relying on three areas. Mrs Inwood was the Guardian for the child was she not?
A She was the Guardian ad litem, yes.
Q She was relying at E:
“… [M2’s] threats to take his own life, secondly, the nature of the parents’ relationship, and thirdly, the mother’s medical history …”
Again, she was not relying at that stage, was she, that M2 was at risk from his mother?
A No.
Q Reading from F onwards:
“Notable for its absence in those lists of grounds on which it is said that the threshold is crossed is the suggestion, which was a significant part of the local authority’s case when the Emergency Protection Order was obtained, that it was suspected that mother suffers from Munchausen’s Syndrome or the Syndrome by Proxy. There cannot be any doubt realistically that this was at the forefront of the local authority’s mind when the Emergency Protection Order was sought …”
What the judge is saying there is right, is it not, that was at the forefront of your mind when the Emergency Protection Order was sought?
A I think we have already established that from the statement.
Q Can I take you to page 7 of that judgment, and picking it up at C:
“I do have a written report of Professor Southall which is expressed by him to be ‘very preliminary’, which to me sounds a note of caution. This report was not prepared for litigation but by way of advice to the local authority … It was prepared at a time when the local authority perceptions of the problems were very different from what they are now and his advice was given in the context that it was feared at that time that [M2] was at risk ‘at the hands of his mother’.”
This is the passage I rely on and want to ask you questions about:
“Things have moved on since it was written.”
Had things moved on, if I can put it that way, from a concern that there was a fear that M2 was at risk at the hands of his mother and then moved on from that to, as it were, concerns of emotional abuse as opposed to possible physical abuse?
A By this time there was – obviously you have not got all the documentation but during this time I was actually doing the core assessment, which is a thick document, and within that it does state that the situation had moved on because of the issues that we had found in relation to domestic violence, you know, and all the other family relationship problems, and so that is what was meant, that it had actually been said that things had moved on in the core assessment.
Q They moved on, just to help members of the Panel who may not be familiar, in order to establish and interim care order you have got to show that the child is at risk of significant harm.
A There is that threshold.
Q You can meet the threshold criteria by establishing evidence of physical abuse or risk of physical abuse, at an ICO stage, or emotional abuse or risk of emotional abuse?
A Yes.
Q Either or both of them, or any combination can lead to significant harm or the threshold being overreached.
A Yes.
Q And before the judge can make any order on the interim care order he has got to be satisfied that the threshold criteria have been met. (No reply) It is right, is it not, that he went through the eight remaining grounds put forward by the local authority and he found at that stage that only one of those grounds had been met, and that was in relation to the domestic violence in the home: I can take you to it.
A Would you mind taking me to it?
Q Yes. I do not want to bounce you into this: can we pick it up at page 10 at D:
“Firstly, as to the assertion that, although mother described [M1] as having been ‘bullied’ at school, this has not been substantiated …”
That was the first ground that was relied upon, and it was found that the allegation of bullying was not substantiated by the school, if I can use that as the headline.
A Yes.
Q The judge’s finding on that is on page 12 at B and C, where it says:
“In the light of this evidence it cannot be said that on the present information there are grounds for believing that mother’s assertions, whoever they have been made to, that [M2] was being bullied are totally untrue and must bear some sinister interpretation. It is true that there is an issue about whether or not mother told [person mentioned] about this but where there is ample evidence that [M2] feels that he has been bullied and has mentioned it to others it cannot be said that mother’s complaint about [M2] being bullied is fabrication.”
So he, as it were, dismisses that ground.
A Yes.
MR TYSON: Then he deals with the absence from school element at page 13, at B:
“As to his significant absence from school … this is the second feature on which the local authority place real reliance … this was not put forward at this hearing with any real vigour”.
So that one was not pursued or accepted by him. And then ---
THE CHAIRMAN: Mr Tyson, I know you are asking the witness to agree with you but it has been pointed out that she is doing quite a lot of nodding rather than answering a question, and that leaves us in difficulty, particularly if we are looking down at our own papers, as to what stage the questioning has got to and how the witness is reacting. I think it would be helpful to have specific questions to which the witness could answer yes or no or otherwise.
MR TYSON: Thank you, madam, I accept that rebuke. (To the witness) In relation to the local authority’s grounds on which they were seeking an interim care order, the child’s absence from school, it is right, is it not, that the judge did not find that as being a ground of significant harm?
A He did not, no.
Q I have dealt with the child having time off. In relation to page 14, the admissions of M2 to hospital, can I take you to 14A which deals with that ground, and the finding of the judge at 14C, which says:
“The significance of these admissions of [the child] to hospital has dwindled because it has been conceded by moth Mrs Salem and Mr Bartley that these admissions have all been satisfactorily explained.”
A It says that, yes.
Q So that ground, as it were, disappeared as being one that enabled you to pass the threshold criteria, that is right is it not?
A Yes.
Q It is right in relation to the possibility of the child witnessing scenes of domestic violence, that was the sole ground upon which he found that the threshold criteria were met, was it not?
A I believe so, yes.
Q It is also right that, having established that the threshold criteria had been met in relation to one aspect, the question then arose as to whether the child should, under the terms of the order, be taken into care, or be fostered, or be allowed to remain with his parents.
A He was already fostered at that point, was he not?
Q That is right.
A Yes.
Q He was ---
A Remaining you mean?
Q Yes, whether he should remain fostered or whether he should be allowed … It is right, is it not, that the local authority through you said they wanted him to continue being fostered.
A Yes, as part of the ongoing assessment, yes.
Q The Guardian also wanted him to continue being fostered and Dr Solomon (or Dr Corfield as now know her as) gave evidence that he should be allowed home, that is right, is it not?
A Yes.
Q And the judge eventually allowed the child to go home?
A Yes.
Q It is also right, is it not, that he remained at home throughout thereafter?
A The proceedings were adjourned, were they not, so therefore the Guardian could remain involved and there was work identified to be done during that one year period.
Q Yes.
A Yes.
Q But throughout the period until the end of the proceedings totally he remained at home.
A He did, yes.
Q Just to complete the picture on that: no full care order was applied for, was it?
A No.
THE CHAIRMAN: Mr Tyson, if you are about to move on to another topic would this be a good place to have a break?
MR TYSON: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: We will take a short break and return at 11.15. Miss Salem, you are still obliged not to discuss the case or your evidence during the break.
(Short adjournment)
THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Tyson?
MR TYSON: Madam, I understand technology is going to allow me to speak loud and clear from now on because my microphone has been raised in some subtle manner. I hope Mrs Lloyd can now hear me better. Taking you to the events of early March, Miss Salem, dealing with the hearing in front of Judge Tonking, can I then just briefly point to the letter of instruction thereafter to Professor Southall, which we find at x in bundle C1. You were taken to this yesterday, can I ask you to look at p.3. I have one simple question relating to this: looking at the matters in which Professor Southall was asked to address factors 1 to 7, it is right, is it not, he was not asked in terms to consider whether M2 was at risk by his mother and, if so, why?
A It is not specifically in those 1 to 7.
Q That is what I wanted you to say in relation to that. But it is right, is it not, that you considered that notwithstanding the terms of the letter of instructions that that is precisely what he should be looking at?
A And certainly Judge Tonking stipulated in his Judgment that we should make further inquiries.
Q And so both you and Professor Southall, I think it is fair, considered that the issue of, as it were, the three scenarios should be looked at?
A I think when you say Professor Southall and I there were multi-agency concerns. The guardian was also in support of that, who was still involved at that time, so it was not just myself. I also had a team manager who – I think we discussed yesterday – I would feed back to on a regular basis.
Q But it is right, is it not, that Professor Southall was only instructed by the local authority and two other experts were instructed by all parties jointly?
A Yes.
Q I will rephrase that, I think I have that slightly wrong. Professor Laura Black was instructed by all the parties, is that not right?
A Yes.
Q And she was the child psychiatrist?
A I think so, yes.
Q And Professor Stevenson, a paediatrician ----
A Yes.
Q -- was employed by all the parties except the local authority?
A I think that is right, yes.
Q I can help with some documentation if we have to?
A No, it is all right.
Q But the point I seek to make is it was only the local authority as opposed to all the parties who sought, and got permission for, the instruction of Professor Southall?
A Yes.
Q That is slightly unusual, is it not, in care proceedings where there is an emphasis if at all possible for there to be joint instructions of all the principal experts?
A Yes, but Professor Southall had already had his preliminary involvement.
Q So that is in March there is the letter of instruction. Can I take you, please, to an event on 16th April? From a document that you produced last time, can I take you back to the bundle D21 documents, please and ask you to look at 21 at g. Do you have that?
A The contact sheet.
Q The contact sheet by your team manager, whose handwriting is not as neat as yours. I see you agreeing with me without putting anything on the transcript. Can I just ask you this, I am looking at the middle, between the two punch holes, this is a meeting which your colleague had had with Detective Chief Inspector Warwick and Sergeant Martin, and contrary to what they said earlier, by April they had decided that they would be reopening an investigation. That is right, is it not?
A I think we heard yesterday that that was never my understanding that they were reopening the investigation but they were reviewing the evidence.
Q But it is clear that they were reopening it?
A That is what it says on this document, yes, but that was never my understanding.
Q But it was information, this file note was on the social services’ files?
A Yes.
Q There for you to read and correct your misunderstanding, if I can put it that way?
A It is not my misunderstanding, it is the misunderstanding of this contact sheet, and I think the files clearly show that they did not reinvestigate, they reviewed their evidence.
Q Yes. But it is right, is it not, that what they said there, they were going to do a number of things in the course of the reinvestigation because of the new information provided by your department – that is one of the reasons?
A That is what it says there.
Q And the information that had been provided by Dr Southall – that is what it also says there, does it not?
A Yes, it does say.
Q And that they had re-examined their own earlier inquiry, it appears, and those three factors made them think that it would be in everyone’s best interests for a thorough investigation now to take place?
A That is what it says.
Q And I suggest to you, because you were extremely familiar with this file and what was going on, that you knew, or must have known, Miss Salem, that now the police were taking up the reins again?
A They never did take up the reins and that is why I am disputing what this contact sheet says.
Q That does not detract from what in fact happened, you said they did not in fact take up the reins again, but it was clearly from that contact sheet their intention to take up the reins again was it not?
A That is what the contact sheet says.
Q Thereafter, some four day later, you had a conversation with Professor Southall, and can I take you back to C1 v 100. Looking at the top of that you record a telephone call from him questioning whether a curtain pole could actually take the weight of a 10 year old boy, and he felt that the police should be looking closer into this. Did you tell him that in fact the police were and that this was a matter for the police?
A I honestly cannot remember.
Q That would be an obvious thing to tell him, would it not?
A It would have been an obvious thing to tell him and have that discussion, but I honestly cannot remember the full content of that telephone call.
Q Is this in fact what happened that both you and he were in fact anxious to proceed with your own investigations notwithstanding the police were reinvestigating the matter?
A Obviously, I do not wish to be rude, but I have got a lot of experience in investigating, I know the boundaries for social services and know that would not be the case; that certainly was not my recollection.
Q I have to suggest to you that you were rather swept along with this idea that the death had to be reinvestigated to fit in with this matter which had been confirmed by Professor Southall within three days of knowing about the case?
A I would obviously disagree with that, I have a lot of experience, and I would not be swept along. I think it also says in the contact sheets later on that I did discuss with DS Martin to ascertain the police’s position at that time prior to making contact with Mrs M, so I obviously did have some discussions with the police about my own way forward.
Q To be fair to you it is the very next day, on 21st, but we are not told what the nature of those discussions were from the contact sheet, are we?
A No.
Q I have to suggest to you, Miss Salem, and I do, that you and Professor Southall were anxious to proceed with this to as far as it went, notwithstanding the involvement of the police?
A I would disagree with that. I would have no reason to do that.
Q Can we come to the time immediately before the appointment which my client had with Professor Southall, and I am dealing with – to help you – your attendance at the bottom of 101 and the top of 102. You went through those bits with your counsel yesterday. You were aware, I suggest, that Mrs M was being asked to attend a medical appointment?
A A medical appointment?
Q Yes, well it was an appointment with a medical man?
A Yes, but it was not as in a physical examination.
Q No, but she was going to have an appointment ----
A Yes, with Professor Southall.
Q With Professor Southall, yes. And did you tell her the purpose of that appointment?
A I cannot remember.
Q It is clear is it not that if it was an appointment with a medical man that confidential medical matters were going to be discussed?
A I think it says in the contact sheets what areas were going to be discussed.
Q Amongst others?
A Yes.
Q But clearly what I am asking you to consider for yourself is did you pause for even a moment to consider whether it was appropriate for you to attend a medical appointment between Mrs M and a consultant paediatrician?
A I did not make the decision in isolation, I made it with the team manager, after discussing it with him.
Q Perhaps you could answer the question, did you for a moment pause to consider whether it was appropriate for you to attend a medical appointment which Mrs M was going to have with a consultant paediatrician?
A I did, and I discussed it with the team manager to get a second opinion.
Q Why did you think it appropriate that when Mrs M was going to be doubtless asked medical matters (it being a medical appointment) that you should attend when potentially confidential medical matters were going to be discussed?
A Because I think if you look at the time that we were working on this, and the guidance was certainly messages from research which says that you need the full information, that is the reason that I went so that we could go through the full background if you like leading up to M1’s death because we needed to manage that risk.
Q I fully understand why you needed the full information, but that is not the same point as you could get the full information, could you not, from any resultant report from Professor Southall? My question is why did you feel it appropriate for you personally to attend where potentially confidential medical matters were going to be discussed?
A There were several issues that obviously we did not want Mrs M to go through the lead up to M1’s death on several occasions, because I would have to discuss that within the core assessment process.
Q Certainly.
A It was felt appropriate because that is what we would do within physical injury. It was not unusual, if you take away the death of M1, if it was, say, just a physical injury then we would do the same as well.
Q The problem I have with your answers, and with your answers yesterday in relation to this, and in your answers yesterday you said you felt it appropriate to attend because it would assist with your core assessment, and so it is entirely about what is good for you, as it were, it would assist you in your understanding of the case. The question I am asking is from the other way round is did you think it appropriate for you to attend a medical appointment with a medical man merely for your own benefit to find out more about the case. It does not seem to be right, does it?
A I think yesterday I did also say that I did not feel it appropriate for Mrs M to go through what had happened twice and I did say that yesterday.
Q We can see from the checklist of matters that wanted to be discussed on page 102, these are matters that relate to the manner of M1’s death do they not?
A Yes, and they relate directly to the issue of potential responsibility for that death by Mrs M?
A There is that potential but if that is in the context of the three areas that we were looking at right at the beginning of the strategy meeting on 29th January.
Q But when you saw these reasons did you not think “Whoops, if we are going into this area, this is a matter for the police rather than for a consultant paediatrician to be looking at?
A No, I did not, because again I can only liken it to physical injuries in that paediatricians will ask these sorts of questions about how injuries have occurred.
Q You told us yesterday that you did not inform Mrs M or her representatives that you were going to attend?
A No.
Q Do you think that is fair to Mrs M?
A I do not think that it was my responsibility at that time. If it had been my meeting and I was arranging it I would have informed whoever that somebody else was going to attend, so no, I did not, because I did not think it was my responsibility.
Q Whose responsibility did you think it was?
A Professor Southall’s, it was his meeting.
Q You arrived ahead of Mrs M and you presumably had a discussion with Professor Southall before Mrs M herself arrived, is that fair?
A I cannot remember.
Q At this time it is fair, is it not, that you did not have a very good relationship with Mrs M because, as you fairly said yesterday, you were the one who was present at and in a sense causative of the fact that M1 had been removed from home?
A I did also say that that improved, did I not, and certainly through the course of the core assessment it had improved.
Q We had evidence from Mrs M that she told us that she felt uncomfortable in your presence and that it was not an easy relationship, is that fair?
A I think it is never an easy relationship in those circumstances.
Q In no way, bearing in mind your role, could you be described as, as it were, a supporter or friend of Mrs M in the interview or appointment.
A I was not there as a supporter, that was not my role.
Q When she walked in why is it that you did not explain to Mrs M why you were there?
A I cannot remember whether I did or did not.
Q We heard evidence from Mrs M who said that you gave no explanation and you just said “Hello”.
A I cannot recall.
Q Would you accept that it would have been appropriate for you to have explained to Mrs M why you were there and what your role was?
A I would accept that it was Professor Southall’s role to do that.
Q I also have to put it to you that not only did you not explain what your role was but neither did Professor Southall explain what your role was.
A I cannot remember,.
Q I also have to suggest to you that not only did Professor Southall not explain why you were there and what your role was, he did not explain to her what the purpose of the appointment was at all. That is also right, is it not?
A I cannot comment, I do not know.
Q Professor Southall told the Panel – for anyone’s reference this is at Day 12, 51B – that he did not think it was appropriate for him to explain why you were there. Is that fair to Mrs M, if that be right?
A If that is the case I think she should have been given an explanation, but I do not know if she was or not because I cannot remember.
Q It is also right, is it not, that not only was there no explanation given to Mrs M about why you were there but no one asked Mrs M’s permission for you to be there.
A I cannot say whether it was correct or not because I cannot remember.
Q Is this also right, and I suggest that it is, that neither Professor Southall nor you asked for her permission for you to be there. Again, presumably, you are going to say “I cannot remember”.
A I honestly cannot remember.
Q I would ask you to look at this for a moment from Mrs M’s point of view. She arrives at the room, she is attending a medical appointment with a medical professor and she sees two people there, one of whom she does not know, like the professor, and one of whom she does know, which is you, about which she is, to use a neutral word, cautious. Also, there was no one there for her, if I can put it that way, so she is immediately, I suggest, on the back foot. Do you accept that?
A I do not accept it because obviously Mr M was invited as well so she should not have been on her own.
Q But Professor Southall made it quite clear that part of his investigation was going to be a conversation with each parent separately.
A Yes.
Q So here we have an interview with one of the parents, she arrives and you are there – no explanation I suggest, we have been through that, no permission, I suggest, and we have been through that. Thirdly, can I suggest something else, that no one offered her somebody to be there as well to give her support.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is that a question? It is not a question.
MR TYSON: I said I suggest that no one asked Mrs M whether she would like anybody to be there, having seen that there was a third party, namely you, there.
A Am I being asked if that happened?
Q I am suggesting to you that nobody asked Mrs M whether she would like to have a friend or supporter with her in light of the fact that you were there, and that is right, is it not, no one did suggest that?
A I do not recall.
Q You knew the agenda for this meeting, did you not, because we have seen the checklist of it at page 102, and you knew that the agenda was going to cover criminal matters, if I can put it that way.
A Yes, but I would not put it that way.
Q You knew that you were going to attend; would it not simply have been a matter of fairness to ensure that she had the opportunity of having somebody to attend with her to be present when those difficult matters were being discussed?
A I understood that was why Mr M was going as well so they could support each other.
MR TYSON: Can we go, please, to what I have as the note of the interview at gg, page 23. I only say that because it may be in 1aa. Madam, there are two versions, there is one clean version and there is one with my client’s manuscript on it. I just seek guidance from the Panel as to at which of the two sections do you have the clean version and at which do you have the commented version?
THE CHAIRMAN: The one in gg is the one without the annotations by Mrs M.
MR TYSON: So the one at aa is the one with manuscript on it.
THE CHAIRMAN: I believe so, yes.
MR TYSON: Dealing with the interview itself and the contents of it can I take you to 1gg at page 23? Can I also ask you to look at your own manuscript note that you took at the time which we have in the D21 bundle at h? Can I assist you, Ms Salem, and say that I have been through an exercise of comparing your handwritten note which you took at the time – presumably you took it on some sort of reporters pad.
A Yes.
Q The typescript that we have broadly follows accurately what you have put in your manuscript note, I accept that. There is omission though in that your manuscript note does not cover the entirety of the typescript report that we have. If we go to page 6 of the manuscript note at 21h we see that the last few lines of that say that:
“Quite a few other parents, approximately 40, are willing to make similar complaints about the teacher. They have written to [the newspaper there mentioned] to complain about the teacher, the teacher led M1 to kill himself and M thinks there is a cover-up.”
That is how your manuscript put it.
A Yes.
Q If I can take you to your typed report, if we go to page 25, your note appears to stop at the penultimate paragraph.
A Yes.
Q Do we have page 7 of your manuscript note?
A That is all that I have.
Q So the discussion about the belt which you record at the bottom of page 25 and the top of page 26 in gg, there is no manuscript note in relation to that aspect, is that right?
A No.
Q It is not right?
A No, there is not.
Q When you went through the boxes or whatever did you realise that this manuscript note was an incomplete record of the interview?
A This is all that I found and this is all that I have.
Q The question I am asking is did you look for page 7?
A I did not look for page 7 because this is all that there was, with the thing on the back, together.
Q I will put it another way. Did you notice that page 7 was missing?
A No, because it was like this and I do not think that page 7 was missing, I think this is all that there is.
Q Does it follow from that that you did not make a manuscript note of the matters concerning the belt?
A How it was tied?
Q Yes.
A Not at that point, no.
Q Is there any reason for you to suddenly stop taking a note when we got to the bit about how the belt was tied?
A Not that I can recall, no.
Q Are you saying to the Panel, just so I can be clear about this, that you stopped taking a note at page 6 and there is no page 7 and there never was a page 7?
A I do not believe there was because if you look at page 6 all the others go down to the bottom of the page and on this one there are three lines.
Q My simple question is why would you suddenly stop taking a note?
A I do not know, I honestly do not know. I do not even remember taking these so it would be difficult.
Q Working from the typescript version – I am not going to take you through all of this – can I just take you to page 23 of section gg? It would appear from that that the first topic of discussion is the issue about whether M1 had been bullied. Can I suggest to you that that is exactly how the appointment went in that, without any preliminaries of any sort, Professor Southall just launched into a question about bullying, thereby putting Mrs M directly onto the back seat? I suggest there were no preliminaries – we have been through that – and I suggest that Professor Southall immediately went into questioning about M1 being bullied.
A I honestly cannot remember.
Q Are you assisted by what we see at page 23 of gg, Professor Southall began the discussion by talking with Mrs M?
A I would have to rely on what is written here.
Q Do you have any independent recollection of this matter, apart from what is in your note, of the whole interview?
A I can remember the room. I can remember where everybody was sitting, as discussed yesterday. I can remember the description about how the belt was tied. I would have to rely heavily on my notes.
Q Let us deal with the manner: Professor Southall, I suggest, was asking direct questions to Mrs M, is that right?
A Direct … He was asking clear questions, yes.
Q He was persistent in the sense that if he did not get an answer that he understood, or similar, he would ask supplementary questions, is that fair?
A If you mean he asked for clarification?
Q Yes.
A Yes, he did ask for clarification.
Q Is this also right, that as well as asking questions and asking for clarification, as you put it, he would also make comments on the answers that he had obtained: is that also right?
A I do not recall any comments.
Q Again I suggest to you that the interview proceeded in a manner of a cross-examination.
A That is not my recollection.
Q I was intrigued yesterday, Miss Salem, when you were praising the virtues of Professor Southall, as opposed to other medical healthcare professionals, where you indicated that the good thing about him was that he challenged people.
A I did not say the good thing about Professor Southall was that he challenged people.
Q You indicated that one of his virtues was that he did challenge and was clear, and was unlike other healthcare professionals who, as it were, said one thing in one thing in one room and then a different thing in their report: he challenged, that is the word you used.
A I did use “challenge” but I did not use “virtues” though.
Q Let us go back to your words rather than my memory: you did use the word “challenge” in respect to Professor Southall?
A Yes.
Q I suggest to you that your only experience of seeing Professor Southall with a, I hesitate to use the word “patient” but in that kind of setting, the only experience that you had that you could use the word “challenge” was as a result of what you had learnt in this particular interview.
A Well not really no, because, obviously, I have been with paediatricians when they have spoken to parents whose parents have been injured so …
Q Sorry, I am not putting the question correctly.
A Sorry.
Q The only experience you had of Professor Southall with somebody attending him, was this particular interview, was it not?
A Right, yes, it was.
Q So it was only as a result of your experiences of seeing Professor Southall in action, if I can put it that way, was this interview, was it not?
A Yes.
Q It follows that it is only as a result of this interview that you could use the word “challenge” to describe one of his capabilities?
A Yes.
Q So does it follow from that that he must have challenged Mrs M in the interview in some way for you to have used that description about him?
A Yes.
Q Does it follow from that that he did not accept some of the answers he was being given?
A Yes.
Q To use your word, he “challenged” her about some of the answers.
A Yes.
Q There was a discussion in the interview about the height and weight of M1, do you recall that?
A I do not recall it but it is in the notes, is it not?
Q Yes, and how far off the ground the child was, I think four inches was mentioned.
A Yes, I think it is in the notes.
Q I have to suggest to you Professor Southall challenged Mrs M in relation to the answers that she gave about that when he said words to the effect that “the pole should have broken”, do you recall him saying words to that effect?
A I do not recall him saying that but …
Q “The pole should have broken”. Again, discussing the curtain pole in some detail, do you recall, and you have it in your notes, that Professor Southall asked how she tried to pull the child down? Let us look at page 25 together, and it is the bit between the two punch holes, and do you see a paragraph that says:
“[Mrs M] stated she tried to pull the rail down when she found [M1] hanging, but she couldn’t. She also stated that the pole had never come down before”.
Do you see that passage?
A Yes, I do.
Q I suggest to you that Mrs M was saying that the pole did not break, it was firmly attached to the wall, or words to that effect: does that bring back any memories?
A It does not, no, not really.
Q I have to suggest that following that kind of answer, that the pole did not break, that it was firmly attached t the wall, that Professor Southall challenged that response by saying words to the effect, “I don’t believe you. You are even heavier than him”. Do you remember that exchange?
A I do not remember that. I would like to think that I would remember something like that.
Q Do you recall that there was a discussion about syringes and injections, in fact it is the passage just above the passage we have been looking at. Your note says:
“Professor Southall asked [Mrs M] about her knowledge of syringes and injections. She said that she didn’t know how to inject someone, she had never seen it done, in theatre she was at the other end of the patient from the anaesthetist.”
Do you recall that passage of the discussion about injection and syringes and the like?
A I recall what is written in here, that is all I am afraid.
Q I have to suggest to you that that was another time when Professor Southall challenged Mrs M’s account, and I have to suggest to you that he said words to the effect of, “I don’t believe that you’ve never seen an injection”: could that be right or do you have no independent memory?
A I have no – I obviously have to rely very heavily on these but certainly if something like that was said I would have either written it down or remembered it.
Q So far you are accepting no challenges but we will carry on and see if you come to one: there was a discussion about the belt and the way that it was fastened, do you recall that?
A Yes.
Q We have been through it before but there is nothing in your manuscript note about that particular conversation. You told us in evidence that because Mrs M was unable to explain, as it were, verbally, she explained practically by use of a pencil and shoe laces, or something like that?
A I think it was something like that, yes.
Q Do you remember that?
A Yes.
Q There was an issue, was there not, about whether she would even tell Professor Southall about how the belt was tied?
A Yes.
Q Do you remember she said she could not tell Professor Southall because her solicitors had advised against it?
A Yes.
Q Do you recall that Dr Southall used words to the effect that this was vital or crucial evidence.
A It was crucial information, yes.
Q And that he indicated words to the effect that child protection cases take precedence over criminal cases?
A I do not recall that.
Q Did he not also say words to the effect, “If you won’t tell us you must have something to hide”?
A I certainly do not recall that.
Q Did he not also say that “your solicitor gave you wrong advice”?
A I do not recall that.
Q Did he also not say, “You must tell us, it’s crucial, you must tell us even if only to prove your own innocence”?
A I do not recall that being said.
Q Do you recall the word “innocence” coming up at all?
A Yes, and I think it is documented in here, is it not?
Q I have to suggest to you that in the course of this discussion about the belt matters became quite heated, is that not right?
A I do not recall matters getting heated, and I think I would recall that.
Q Because Mrs M was reluctant to tell anything about the belt on her solicitor’s advice and Professor Southall was determined to find out about the belt because he regarded it as crucial evidence and matters got heated as those two seemingly irreconcilable stances had to be resolved, and I suggest that it was heated.
A That is not my recollection.
Q It is right, is it not, that her stance was, “I’m not telling you, on solicitors advice”?
A Yes.
Q His stance was, “This is vital and crucial evidence.”
A Yes: information, yes.
Q I suggest to you that to resolve those two stances there was a heated exchange of words between the two participants in the conversation?
A I would have recalled a heated discussion but certainly that is not my recollection at all.
Q And that Professor Southall was aggressively questioning her to try and get to the answer that he wanted.
A That is certainly not my recollection.
Q And that he was challenging her as to her stance, and seeking to get out the information which he wanted, is that right?
A That is certainly not my recollection of events, no.
Q Further I have to suggest to you that in relation to this you agreed that there was a practical demonstration, and did Professor Southall not then say when you saw it, “Ah, how clever” or words to that effect?
A No.
Q Or “very clever”?
A No.
Q Are you saying no or that you do not recall?
A I would recall if something as inappropriate as that had been said.
Q I further have to put to you that when he said these words that you do not accept were said, they were said in a sarcastic manner. (No reply) Can we come to the three scenarios? You put in your note, both in your manuscript note and in the written report, words to the effect that Professor Southall went through these, so, clearly, do you accept that there was a discussion about the three scenarios?
A Yes.
Q And that there was a discussion about the pros and cons of each of them?
A I think that is reflected in the documentation.
Q All the documentation says on page 25 is that Professor Southall then went through the three scenarios with Mrs M as follows:
“1. That [M1] died accidentally through experimentation.
2. That he intended to kill himself.
3. That he was murdered.”
What I am suggesting to you is that there was a discussion, was there not, about each and every one of those three alternates: yes?
A I believe there was, yes.
Q In relation to the first one, accidental through experimentation, Professor Southall I suggest rejected that by telling Mrs M that he thought that that was unlikely, that this boy was engaged in sexual experimentation, do you recall that?
A I do not recall that at all.
Q But he may well have said that?
A He may have done but I do not recall that.
Q There was discussion about the suicide. It is right, is it not, that Professor Southall pointed out that one of the difficulties about that scenario was that there was no suicide note, do you remember him mentioning that?
A I do not remember that, no.
Q When we get to the third scenario, did it not go rather like this: “I have to put it to you that you killed your son by injecting him, hanging him up and leaving him to die”, did he not use words like that?
A Again, I am sure if something like that had been said that would be wholly inappropriate and I would have remembered.
Q Did he also not add a comment that “That is what I think happened?”
A I certainly do not recall that.
Q All we have in both your manuscript note and the typescript are the simple words that he was murdered, but there was plainly a discussion about it, was there not? Can you help us as to that?
A I cannot really, it is obviously some time ago now.
Q When he went through the matters – would you help us as to that – it is right, is it not, that she emphatically denied that she had murdered her child?
A I do not remember that being said.
Q And did she not rely on the Coroner’s verdict saying that “Murder had been excluded by the Coroner” or words to that effect?
A I do not recall that at all.
Q And expressed her view that it was due to M1 being bullied at school that had caused the death rather than anything else?
A I think it says in here, does it not, that Mrs M maintained that M1 was bullied and that was the cause.
Q Do you recall Professor Southall then challenging Mrs M with words to the effect that “The trouble with that, Mrs M, is there is no toxicology”?
A I do not understand – the trouble with what?
Q The trouble with the suicide verdict, or the suicide view of Mrs M was that there was no toxicology – do you remember him using ----
A That does not make any sense to me, that, I am afraid, I do not understand.
Q Do you remember there being any mention of toxicology and the lack of toxicology?
A I remember Professor Southall asking if toxicology had happened at the time.
Q And was he not suggesting to Mrs M that one of the problems was that there had been no toxicology reports in this case. He did say that there had not been any.
Q Yes. And that was one of the problems why he could not necessarily accept suicide as being the answer. Was that not in the context of him saying that?
A I cannot remember to be perfectly frank.
Q By the time, when all this discussion about murder was taking place Mrs M was in tears, was she not?
A I do not recall Mrs M being in tears.
Q And there was perhaps a slight pause for her to compose herself?
A If there had been a slight pause I think I would have written it down.
Q But you have no independent memory one way or the other?
A No, but I do not recall there having been a break and usually that would be the sort of thing we would write down because we have to when we do interviews.
Q Let us see what you do accept. You accept there was discussion about whether murder was one of the scenarios here, you accept that?
A It is not a question of accepting, if I could remember I would and I am doing my best.
Q Do you accept there was a discussion about how difficult it would be to deliberately suffocate a 10 year old?
A I do not remember that, no.
Q Or asphyxiate him – do you remember the word asphyxiation coming out?
A I do not, no.
Q Do you remember there was a discussion about whether because he was a 10 year old sedation would be required? Do you remember the word “sedation” being discussed?
A No, I do not.
Q Is it right, just to recall the answer you gave earlier, you cannot remember any discussion about toxicology in this context?
A No, I did say that I remember toxicology being discussed.
Q Can I ask you briefly to look please at tab z in C1, and at page 30? If we read this together I am going to ask you if any of this helps you to bring your memory back, at the bottom paragraph, do you see that?
A Yes.
Q To help you, this is an extract from Professor Southall’s report to the court about this interview, just to help you by looking at the front of z. It is his report to the court of 20th May 1998.
A. Right.
Q And just to bring it right into context for you, can we look at page 27. It is minutes of a meeting held on 27th April, do you see that?
A Yes.
Q Going through the pages he describes that on pages 27, 28 and 29, and we get to 30, the last paragraph on there?
A Right, I am with you.
Q
“Professor Southall also pointed out that there were three possible scenarios which could explain M1’s death. The first of these was that he had been experimenting with hanging and that accidentally he had died as a result of this.”
Pausing there, can you remember that is how he put it, that he had been experimenting with hanging? Does this help you bring any memory back?
A It does not. Obviously this is Professor Southall’s report.
Q I am just using this to see if it is an aide memoir to you at all to bring any memories back?
A No.
Q
“Usually under these circumstances there are sexual overtones and there is no evidence one way or the other as to whether any form of sexual experimentation was occurring. Professor Southall felt that this was unlikely to be the case.”
Just pausing there a moment, does this help you to say that that was the view that Professor Southall was expressing at the time?
A That experimentation was not a likely ----
Q Yes?
A Yes, I would agree that that was the case.
Q That he expressed a view that it was unlikely to be an element in this case?
A Yes.
Q We go to the second possibility – do you see:
“The second possibility was that M1 had deliberately hung himself. However, there was no suicide note but it was clear that two of the boys had reported that M1 had mentioned killing himself to them.”
Does that help you bring it back as to whether there was a discussion about the suicide note?
A I do not remember the note to be mentioned.
Q “The third possibility was that Mrs Morris had killed M1. A discussion ensued about this ...” Pausing there for a moment, do you recall there was a discussion about that possibility?
A Yes.
Q
“… including the concept that at 10 years old it would be quite difficult to deliberately suffocate or asphyxiate M1 and then pretend to hang him.”
Does that help you bring back ----
A No, it does not help at all.
Q “Probably some form of sedation would be involved.” Does that help bring back a memory as to that?
A No, it does not.
Q “Mrs M assumed that this had been excluded at the post mortem …” Does that help you bring that aspect back at all, the discussion about the post mortem results?
A Was that not in relation to the toxicology?
Q I am suggesting to you it was all in relation to the discussion about the three scenarios?
A It was definitely in relation to the three scenarios and I remember the discussion about the toxicology should have been done at the time.
Q And was it not brought up in this context where Mrs M assumed – just reading on –
“…assumed that this had been excluded at the post mortem, Professor Southall pointed out that he could not find any evidence as to whether or not toxicological analysis had been undertaken on M1 after his death.”
Does that help you bring back the context in which it was mentioned?
A Yes.
Q “Mrs M categorically denied asphyxiating M1 and reiterated her view that he deliberately killed himself”, does that help bring back her emphatic denials?
A It does not but I remember Mrs M talking about the bullying and went on to the 40 other parents.
Q We can see from Professor Southall’s note that there clearly was a discussion about sedation and suffocation and hanging, I suggest all these matters were put to Mrs M as a method by which she had killed her son, and that he did accuse her of that in that interview. That is right, is it not?
A I do not believe that Professor Southall did accuse her, no.
Q We move on to after the interview. Immediately after the interview did you have a discussion with Professor Southall about where we go from here?
A Was that after the interview or was that the following day?
Q I am asking you.
A Can I just check my ----
Q Yes. The only way I can get it from is either the manuscript note that you gave us yesterday - the first place we see it, just to help you, is 1 dd at 77.
A Yes.
Q Before I ask you any questions, can I also ask you to have open at the same time the manuscript document you produced yesterday which we have at the D21 bundle at 21i. My first question to you is: did Professor Southall give you these lists of tasks or did you discuss the plan of action at North Staffordshire on the day of the interview, or was it on a subsequent occasion?
A It would appear from my records that it was on the same day, because they were typed the same day on 28.4.
Q I can see they were typed on 28th, the interview was on the 27th?
A Yes.
Q Is it likely that this manuscript note that we see at 21i was taken on the day of the interview in the same form of reporter’s notebook as you recorded the interview itself. You are looking at some other documents that are not before the Panel. If you find the answer that you are looking for perhaps you can tell us what it is?
A Well it was done on the same day.
Q At a discussion with Professor Southall at the Department of Paediatrics – it would make sense, would it not?
A It would make sense and I can only presume.
Q That in the sense having seen Mrs M there would be a debrief as to what you had learned?
A I am not sure ‘debrief’ is quite the right word, but certainly there were areas outstanding, including looking further into the bullying.
Q All the matters that have been listed – if we are looking the typescript at dd page 700 – go to the question of M1’s death, do they not?
A Yes.
Q And they all indicate, do they not, that Professor Southall was disbelieving of mother’s account?
A I am not sure I would use disbelieving but certainly further questions were raised.
Q Well let us use an expression much beloved now by me, of him seeking to ‘challenge’ her account?
A As with any good inquiry if there are outstanding questions then they need to be answered.
Q Yes. But the reason for numbers 1 to 11 surely can only be based on one premise was that Professor Southall was challenging the account that Mrs M had given at the interviews, there is no other basis?
A Yes, I think you are using ‘challenging’ in the wrong context for me at this moment in time, but certainly these were questions that needed to be answered.
Q I will put it in a more forward way. I suggest to you that the only reason why you agreed this plan of action, or he suggested this plan of action, was broadly and simply because he did not believe what Mrs M was telling him? It is quite clear, is it not?
A I do not think it is. I see these as things that are still outstanding and need to be clarified, and answered.
Q I suggest to you that the kind of questions he was asking you to resolve is indicative of the kind of questions he was asking her at interview about the murder because he did not believe her during the course of the interview and did not believe her afterwards and hence asked all these questions. Do you see what I mean?
A I see what you mean; I am not sure that I agree though.
Q Putting it another way, I suggest to you that at the interview he challenged her and accused her of murder and with this checklist afterwards he was trying to find independent verification to support his belief, do you see that?
A That was not my understanding at the time, no.
Q Is not this plan of action suggested by Professor Southall, are not all these police matters rather than social services matters, the police should be investigating them, bearing in mind they were back on board by now?
A I think some of them were ones that I would undertake but certainly measuring the height of the rail, yes.
Q What about the involvement of a forensic pathologist, is that not pre-eminently a police matter?
A That was something that we did discuss with the police.
Q Was one in fact instructed?
A I cannot remember at the moment.
Q If we go on in our dd to page 84, are you familiar with the fact – and if you are not please tell me – that on 15 May Professor Southall was asking the local authority’s solicitors for further matters relating to that? If you cannot help us with that please tell me.
A No, I cannot.
Q Dealing with a few short matters, you are aware, are you not, that Mrs M was unhappy about that medical appointment that she had had with Professor Southall?
A I was, following her discussion with Ruth Williams.
Q Did she tell you about it – did she Mrs M tell you about it or did she just tell your colleague about it?
A She told my colleague.
Q Whatever the source, you were fully aware that she was unhappy about what had happened in the course of that interview.
A Yes.
Q And that she felt that she was being treated – I think the word was “like a criminal”.
A I think we saw the contact sheet yesterday.
Q She was also unhappy about the fact that you personally were there, was she not?
A Was that said in the contact sheet?
Q Her solicitors complained about your presence, do you remember that?
A Yes, I remember that.
Q If we look at 1gg, page 19, the solicitors there mentioned were Mrs M’s solicitors at the time, do you remember that?
A Yes.
Q Beth Parry was the solicitor, do you remember?
A Yes.
Q And we heard evidence from Beth Parry in this case. That is a letter of 6 May 1998, shortly after the interview. You see:
“Our client attended the medical appointment which was requested of her with Professor Southall and from our instructions it would seem that she was being subjected to this medical with your social worker Francine Salem being present. We should be grateful to receive a full explanation as to why this is the case.”
Do you remember being asked for your comments on that letter?
A Yes, I think Alan McLaughlin, our legal person, replied.
Q We see the reply that we got on the next page, page 20, in the middle of the page, where he said:
“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 you cross-examine Professor Southall to explain why the social worker was required to sit in on the interview with your client.”
Is he saying that on the basis of what you told him?
A I cannot remember my discussion with Alan at that point.
Q Do you think it is fair for you to feel able to remain at a potentially confidential medical appointment on the basis that my client did not object? Do you think that is a fair basis for you being there?
A I do not understand; can you just rephrase it for me? I am not sure what you are asking.
Q A complaint was being made by Mrs M’s solicitors about your presence.
A Right.
Q The response we get from the local authority’s solicitors is why is she complaining, in effect, she did not object at the time.
A Right.
Q Do you think that is, on reflection, a fair response to the complaint?
A I am not sure whether it is fair. I am not able to comment as to whether it is fair or not and certainly it is not my letter.
Q But your instructions have been taken.
A They must have been, I presume.
Q It says in terms.
A I do not remember.
Q At the end of the day, perhaps you can help the Panel as to this, both Professor Black and Professor Stevenson produced reports. Globally, is it fair that neither Professor Stevenson nor Professor Black considered that MSBP, to use jargon, was a runner in this case.
A Yes.
Q As a result of doubtless those reports, the local authority decided not to apply for a full care order in this case.
A We did not, no.
Q M2 remained at home the whole time.
A He remained at home. The proceedings were adjourned for a year and he remained at home during that time.
Q And the police, having as we see reopened the total investigation as they said they were going to do in April, concluded by saying we are not going to proceed any further, is that not right?
A Again, I would say that they did not re-investigate, they reviewed their evidence.
Q We have a letter from the police in jj in the bundle, do you see that?
A Yes.
Q A letter to Mrs M’s solicitors.
“As previously indicated to you following concerns expressed by a number of agencies the police undertook a review into the initial police investigation. This review has only recently been completed and has not revealed anything to suggest that the original verdict at the coroner’s court was not correct.”
A Yes.
Q The necessary implication of that, do you accept, Ms Salem, was that they saw no grounds to thinking that murder was an aspect in this case?
A Yes.
MR TYSON: I have no further questions, thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN: Mr Coonan, do you wish to do your re-examination now or take a slightly early lunch break?
MR COONAN: It did cross my mind that bearing in mind Ms Salem has been in the witness box now for certainly well over an hour and as I do have some re-examination, I want to take it quite slowly – it is an important matter – and I would prefer not to have it done in two parts. If it is convenient to you it is certainly convenient to me.
THE CHAIRMAN: The morning session is somewhat longer than the afternoon session if we break at one anyway so I think it probably would be appropriate from everybody’s point of view to take an early lunch break now, and I would suggest that we come back at quarter the two.
Ms Salem, you are not allowed to talk about your evidence over lunch.
(Luncheon adjournment).
THE CHAIRMAN: Good afternoon. Mr Coonan, you are going to re-examine Ms Salem, and perhaps I can say at the outset that our plan would be that after your re-examination we will adjourn until Monday to give the Panel more time to consider their questions.
MR COONAN: Yes, thank you.
Re-examined by MR COONAN
Q Ms Salem, can we just go back over a number of the matters you have been asked about, and this exercise in no way is a simple repetition of what you have been asked, it is a process of clarifying a number of the matters, do you follow?
A Yes.
Q Just one preliminary matter that you were asked about right at the beginning of your cross-examination was the note that you discovered at the bottom of the box in the archive department at Shirehall, which is D21, letter h, the six-page document. You mentioned that in normal circumstances it would have been destroyed.
A Yes.
Q Could you just help the Panel about that? Is that pursuant to a destruction policy or what? Just help us?
A It is local practice really that your written notes do not make up the file, they would make up any reports and contact sheets would go on the file rather than your own notes that you make at the time.
Q But at any event good fortune prevailed and the note was found, is that right?
A Yes, I am not sure it was good fortune but yes.
Q Saving your embarrassment we have the document.
A Yes.
Q To move on to more substantive matters, please, we may need just to look at the events which occurred up to 23 January, so if you want to orientate yourself by looking at the file in the tab of contact sheets, it is at tab d and they begin at page 370 and run through to just above the first hole punch mark, do you see?
A Yes.
Q By that stage you had also compiled your initial assessment report at tab b. At page 358 we see your opinion in paragraph 8, is that right?
A Yes.
Q This is, of course, before you speak to Professor Southall on the evidence.
A Yes.
Q Is this right, that the opinion you are setting out on page 358 is a view being expressed by yourself first of all without the benefit of Professor Southall’s opinion? A I believe it is, yes.
Q In coming to that view we have looked at the contact sheets and I am not going to go through them all again, the Panel have them, but just summarise for us the general sources of material that you had available in coming to that preliminary view on page 358.
A Certainly it is clear that there was information from the Education Department, from the Health Department, from the Police Department, from the Part 8 review, from the CAMH service.
Q Sorry, from?
A The Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service.
Q Yes.
A From the family GP; there were several sources.
Q Where did the idea – and I am using that word neutrally – of parentally induced injury, which is enshrined in the last paragraph of page 358, come from?
A Originally it had come from the referral.
Q By?
A By Mrs Bickley.
Q Is that something that the social services department obviously considered?
A Yes, it certainly was.
Q When I say social services department I do not just mean you, did you and others in the department consider it?
A Yes.
Q Just one relatively small matter, Mr Tyson appeared to be proceeding upon the basis that there was as it were a three day gestation period for this, but if we look at the D file at letter d, the document you produced yesterday.
THE CHAIRMAN: This is D21 is it?
MR COONAN: Yes, D21. It has the referral details document, 16 January.
A Yes.
Q Do the Panel work on the basis that this was the first piece of hard information which really sets the ball rolling?
A Yes.
Q We have not looked at it in enormous detail because I had rather taken it as read that the details are self-evident, but when you have been talking about the referral from Mrs Bickley, this is the document we are concerned with.
A Yes.
Q In so far as I have said gestation periods are relevant, we are looking at about seven days until of course the telephone call is made to Professor Southall.
A Yes.
Q Mr Tyson took you to tab j, if you could turn that up, please, and he took you to page 430, in particular page 438, halfway down the page, a reference to Mrs M being obviously a very caring and concerned parent, do you see that?
A Yes.
Q And at page 442, material in a similar vein, right at the top of the page, the beginning of the second paragraph, “Over the year Mrs M was a concerned parent …” and so on. Mr Tyson put to you that that suggested a picture of a concerned parent wanting to do her best for M1 at school, and your answer was – this is what you said, I think – “from the extracts, yes”. Can you just help the Panel about that? You have told the Panel that you took these matters into account. Would you take these matters into account simply in isolation?
A No, we would look at the whole context of the situation and the information we had.
Q In other words, putting it another way, were those comments that you see there determinative of social services’ view of the case?
A I am sorry, I really do not understand.
Q Were those comments there determinative – in other words exclude the issue of parental induced illness?
A No.
Q On the 23rd we know that Dr Southall and you had a telephone conversation, which is at tab d/375. I am going to read this out for the record. I appreciate it has been read once already but in the light of a line of cross-examination by Mr Tyson I think it appropriate to bring it back to the attention of the Panel through you, if I may:
“Telephone call to Professor Southall at North Staffs Hospital and gave him a brief summary of involvement and concerns”.
Pausing there, whose concerns?
A The agencies’ concerns.
Q Just spell them out for us.
A The education and the health that I have already referred to.
Q “David Southall shared my anxieties and felt” – do you see that word, “felt”?
A Yes.
Q “… that I was right in my suspicions that this may be”, and I just draw attention to that word, “maybe PI Illness. He believed that we had a ‘major’ child protection issue here and suggested that we needed him ‘on board’.”
It may be self-evident but I will ask you formally: is this a contemporaneous note of the telephone conversation?
A Yes.
Q Again, it may be self-evident from your initial report that we have looked at but was your feeling at this stage that you had suspicions only as opposed to a conclusion?
A Most definitely, yes.
Q Which I put two to you.
A Sorry, it was suspicions.
Q We see on the same sheet of paper, a little lower down on page 375, that there was a further telephone call from Detective Sergeant Martin,
“… wanting to know why we” – you – “were not moving this child prior to the weekend”.
Do you have any memory now of that telephone call?
A Not of the telephone call, no, but there were various discussions with the police, who were pressing us to move swiftly.
Q The picture at that stage was, was it, that you had decided, apparently, not to do anything until at least the weekend?
A Yes.
Q So in terms of what was described this morning in cross-examination of you by Mr Tyson, using the expression “mindset”, what mindset did you have personally by this stage?
A I had an open mind, and that is what we are trained, to have an open mind and to believe the unbelievable, but also to remain open at all times, and certainly the information needed to be shared at the strategy meeting, and that is our procedure.
Q What about your team manager, did he have an open mind?
A My team manager definitely had an open mind.
Q Help us about the structure: is your team manager more experienced than you, or the same, or less?
A He is very experienced. He was a team manager for 14 years.
Q Again, I think you touched on this during the course of your evidence yesterday but did you share these suspicions with your team manager?
A Yes.
Q I would like to turn to tab o. This is the note – and I will come back to it in a different context in a few minutes – but it is the strategy meeting of 26 January, and it is in two parts, pages 1-8 are the minutes and then the second document, pages 17-20 is the summary hypotheses, and it is obvious there are two separate documents there.
A Yes.
Q Was the second document available for those who attended the strategy meeting?
A Yes, it was prepared for the strategy meeting.
Q It was suggested to you this morning by Mr Tyson that it was you – I think this was the thrust of his suggestion – alone who was pushing what he called the “PII line”, what do you say about that?
A I think we can see that it was certainly multi-agency. There was plenty of representation there, and I think the recommendation, or the recommendations reflect everybody’s concerns.
Q When you are looking at the recommendations at page 8, were those the recommendations of everybody who was present?
A That is my understanding, yes.
Q Leaving the recommendations to one side, what about your own role? Was it you and you alone, and the thrust of the questioning was about you personally, pushing a PII line: what do you say about that?
A No, I do not agree that that was the case at all.
Q Who else, if I can put it this way, had an active involvement in, as it were, carrying the issue forward?
A Certainly health representatives, and education as well.
Q Miss Salem, it may be appropriate now just to leave the question of the contact sheets to one side. I am going to ask you some more general questions about the workings of social services and police: you are somebody with the experience you have described in child protection, and it is therefore on that basis that I seek your views for the assistance of the Panel. What areas of what may be called “child abuse” do social services have to deal with?
A A whole remit. It can be from physical abuse, sexual abuse, or emotional abuse and neglect.
Q In terms of physical abuse, what forms might that take?
A It can be anything from, for example, bruising to a young person caused by a parent, you know, through to the whole spectrum really.
Q You tell us what you mean by “the whole spectrum”?
A You can have broken limbs right through to death, really.
Q The phrase which I am sure all of us are familiar with is “non accidental injury”.
A Yes.
Q Is that a phrase you use in social services?
A Yes.
Q What is that phrase intended to convey?
A An injury that was not caused accidentally.
Q When social services are faced with possible – and I approach my questions on this basis, possible – child abuse in one or other of its forms that you have described, is there a lead agency which is responsible for the investigation and assessment of that issue?
A The decision regarding that is usually made at the strategy discussion, which is supposed to be held within 24 hours of us getting any allegation of abuse.
Q The strategy discussion is convened by whom?
A It is usually ourselves.
Q Social services?
A Yes.
Q Who, as it were – you choose the right word, either directs or controls or manages (that is perhaps a more neutral word) – manages the assessment or investigation of possible child abuse thereafter?
A Once a decision is made as to whether or not it would be a joint investigation or a single agency investigation, the social workers, in line with their team manager, would make that decision, but often there is such a lot of liaison going on on a daily basis with the police as well.
Q In this case, as you understand it, was it always a joint investigation?
A Yes, once – yes, that decision to undertake Section 47 enquiries jointly, yes.
Q Did it remain a joint investigation throughout the period that we have been looking at?
A Yes, that was my understanding.
Q It is on the, as it were, question of a parallel interface between a joint investigation in relation to investigations under the Children Act and a possible criminal investigation which may lead to criminal proceedings, I would like you please to help the Panel about that as a concept.
A Okay. Do you want me to talk in general terms or specifically in relation to this?
Q No, generally first, please.
A Very often, for an example, if you have a physical injury to a young person we would visit, make a decision that there were enough concerns to instigate a Section 47 investigation. Obviously, workers would be allocated to that. It may be that a social worker and a police officer would need to speak to a young person to find out how an injury had occurred. For instance, if a doctor had said that the explanation that the parents had given is not consistent with the injury, we would need to speak to that young person, and we would do that jointly, usually under memorandum conditions, which means that the social workers and the – or achieving best evidence as it is now called but then it was memorandum – where the social worker and the police officer actually jointly trained to undertake those inquiries and to do that. It is an interview that would stand up in a criminal court as well, so we have to be aware of the implications of that when we are asking colleagues – we have to have open questions; we cannot lead anybody. So that if often how we work, so we have to have a mind to any criminal proceedings. If it was felt that an arrest was going to be imminent then obviously we have to take care – and that is why we have to talk closely to the police all the time to make sure that we do not duplicate, but also that we make sure that the criminal line is not – you know – it is quite clear.
Q Speaking generally, if the local police have an investigation on foot, you understand what I mean by that, which is in the process of being, as it were, carried out in whatever form …
A Right.
Q … does that fact stop any investigations which you need to carry out pursuant to the Children Act?
A No.
Q Can you explain why that is?
A Certainly we need to ensure that child safety, and any other children’s safety is paramount, so that overrides everything really.
Q Sorry, what does?
A The paramouncy of the young person’s safety.
Q In this case, if we can come to the facts for a minute, and you have given the Panel your view about that in general terms, that this was a joint investigation, what was your general view as to what the police were doing either in parallel with what you were doing throughout the months of this particular case with which the Panel are concerned. Do you understand?
A Yes.
Q Can you deal with that?
A Well certainly we were working jointly. We jointly interviewed M2 and certainly we jointly took M2 for a medical examination at the local hospital on the day after the EPO, so all those things were done jointly, but they made it quite clear to me that they were reviewing the evidence of the circumstances of M1’s death and those inquiries that were taken at that point.
Q When you say “they” you are referring to the police?
A Yes, the Family Protection Unit.
Q Even on the basis that the police were reviewing the evidence, that word “review” ----
A Yes.
Q -- would that have the effect of stopping any investigation you were carrying out into the circumstances of the care and wellbeing of M2?
A No.
Q Would it stop any appreciation or investigation by social services and any other feeder agency of the circumstances of M1’s death?
A No. I think there is close liaison and we do update each other all the time and that is part of how we work.
Q Let us look and gather our references together so far as the police are involved. First of all, let us look at tab o at page 8. Bearing in mind these minutes are 26th January, and one of the recommendations at 6: “Police and Social Services to undertake a joint Section 47 investigation”, do you see that?
A Yes.
Q So that was as of 26th January. Then if we move to tab r for 29th January and go to page 4, I take you back to this passage you were asked about this morning, about six lines down beginning: “Steve Martin pointed out …” do you see that?
A Yes.
Q
“Steve Martin pointed out that now there was an investigation underway by the Police, all the information that came to his attention would be open to disclosure.”
Can you just help the Panel as to what your understanding of that is?
A That anybody would have to make statements if they were asked to do.
Q When you say “anybody”?
A Well any of the agencies, such as the education.
Q Right. “… to make witness statements if asked by the police or the Crown Prosecution Service”, is that right?
A Yes.
Q And: “The police are yet to make a decision about how to look at all the information they have and whether they will prosecute Mrs M or not.” Then I drop down a few lines:
“Mrs M knows that we are looking at the possibility of Munchausen’s Syndrome By Proxy and the police made arrangements for her to go to a solicitor …” etc.
Did any of that indicate to you at the time that you as social services should be having nothing to do with any focused investigation or assessment relating to the circumstances of M1’s death?
A No, it did not.
Q Then if you move to page 6 in the same tab, it is the passage you were asked about:
“Dr Solomon asked whether the investigation was a joint one with Social Services under Child Protection or was it criminal to which Steve Martin replied that it was a criminal investigation.”
Just pausing there, bearing in mind that on 26th there had been a resolution to have a joint investigation did you read that as meaning that the joint investigation was now terminated? It is all right, do not worry about Mr Tyson shaking his head, just answer the question.
A Sorry. No, because there is always room within the section 47 the two would run parallel, they are interlinked, if you like, they do not stand in isolation.
Q Then it goes on: “The approach was a joint one but investigation of an offender is done by the police.” Again, when you read this was that an unremarkable observation or a remarkable observation?
A Unremarkable.
Q “Dr Solomon felt the child protection investigation has not progressed far enough for that.” Is that something that you agreed with at the time?
A I think there were still further investigations to go.
Q Yes. Then just to complete the run of correspondence, if you now look at the D file, and turn to D21at document e, do you have that? You told the Panel yesterday this was in your writing?
A Yes.
Q Just read through it carefully to yourself and just get your bearings before I ask you the question?
A (Pause for reading) Yes.
Q Now what did that confirmation by the police tell you at the time in summary form?
A Well it certainly told us that they were not reinvestigating it and it was something that they laboured a lot that they were reviewing the evidence, but it was quite clear that they were in agreement that there were outstanding answers to be addressed.
Q Outstanding questions ----
A Yes.
Q -- to be addressed?
A Sorry, yes.
Q Then we move on to 16th April, which his at document g in the same file, with Mr Bartley’s signature on the bottom?
A Yes.
Q Now, this is a contact sheet which is, just so that you get your bearings, after the court Judgment, it is four weeks after, all right?
A Yes.
Q Half way down the page: “The police now confirm that they will be reopening an investigation into M1’s death”, and we see the second part of that:
“In the light of new information provided by Social Services Department, Dr Southall, and a re-examination of their own enquiry (by way of internal review) it is believed that there is evidence that would cast doubt on the cause of M1’s death, and it would be in everyone’s best interests if a full and thorough investigation now took place.”
I just want to understand, and it is entirely for you to explain to the Panel, what you understood to be the position that we are now dealing with in mid-April?
A As I said before that the police were quite clear with myself that there was not going to be a reinvestigation but they were reviewing the evidence because they were concerned at some of the ambiguities in the statements that had been taken.
Q This may be a slightly hypothetical question, if you cannot answer it say so, but if you had known what the police were – as it says on this document – reopening an investigation into M1’s death, if that was the case and you had known that, would that have altered your approach to what happened on 27th April in any way?
A No, because there was still that dialogue with the police going on.
Q Then I think we have just got to go back now to complete this correspondence. If you go to tab v at page 100. I am going to take you please to two entries which have the date 21st April 1998 associated with them, do you see those on the first line of the 21st “telephone call”?
A To DS Martin, yes.
Q Again, if you cut out the middle bit, because it is irrelevant for my purposes, and drop down to the end of that paragraph: “Telephone call from DS Martin”, do you see the two?
A Yes.
Q And we link them together for present purposes?
A Yes.
Q Now this was five days after that contact sheet at document g in the D file?
A Yes.
Q Five days. Can you remember now why it was that you telephoned DS Martin on 23rd?
A I cannot remember now.
Q The note that you made, I will just read it again:
“Telephone call to DS Martin to ascertain what the police position is at this time prior to making contact with Mrs M to continue the assessment.”
Just stop there for a minute. This was after the court hearing, what do the Panel understand by your use of the term “assessment” there?
A That would be my core assessment.
Q Then the linked entry at the bottom: “Telephone call from DS Martin – agreed that I would continue with our assessment process.” Again, the same terminology.
Q Again, when you talk about “core assessment” does the core assessment, as defined at this stage in April, does that include the matters which were still outstanding following the court hearing?
A Yes, yes, it would do.
Q We will look at those in a moment. Finally, you were taken to the final entry relating to the police at tab jj which is way down the line in December. Mr Tyson read out this letter, or the major part of it, and you see the reference there to the police undertaking a review into the initial police investigation.
A Yes.
Q Is that what you understood the police were doing throughout this case?
A Yes.
Q I draw attention, particularly for your purposes, so that you can comment if necessary, on the use of the word “review”.
A Yes.
Q Ms Salem, in the light of what you have told the Panel was the understanding as to the police’s role in this, did you think it appropriate or inappropriate that the matters that Dr Southall said that he was going to cover, which we can see at page 102 of tab v – the four issues there, did you think it was appropriate or inappropriate that those were apparently intended to be covered by Professor Southall?
A I thought it was appropriate.
Q Jumping ahead a little bit now, when the three scenarios which, as a matter of fact, mirrored the hypotheses which had been presented to the strategy meeting were raised by Professor Southall in the interview, did you think that was appropriate or inappropriate?
A I thought it was appropriate and honest, yes.
Q I want just to move back – I am sorry to jump around – to the position at the time of the interim care order application which was heard by His Honour Judge Tonking. Can you take C4, please, the separate judgment file? Some parts of the judgment were drawn to your attention and I just want, simply for completion, to draw your attention to about three passages. Look, please, at page 4 and you will see at letter G that the two items there, number nine and ten, as the judge said, “These last two points were not pursued in evidence.” Mr Tyson drew attention to that this morning and yesterday you commented on an aspect of this. Can I just bring the two points together; what was the reason why those two matters were not pursued at that stage?
A Because we did not have an expert witness.
Q You did not have Professor Southall.
A Yes.
Q Because he was not available to give evidence.
A No, he was not.
Q Then if you move on to page 5, at F:
“Notable for its absence in those lists of grounds on which it is said that the threshold is crossed is the suggestion, which was a significant part of the local authority’s case when the Emergency Protection Order was obtained, that it was suspected that mother suffers from Munchausen’s Syndrome or the Syndrome by Proxy. There cannot be any doubt realistically that this was at the forefront of the local authority’s mind when the Emergency Protection Order was sought, in particular because they sought to consult, and did consult, Professor Southall, although he does not make specific reference in his report to Munchausen’s.”
Pausing there, that is in fact the case. I read on:
“It must be for this reason that the application for the Emergency Protection Order was made in terms that there was a fear that M2 could suffer at the hand of his mother, and Mrs Inwood’s report …”
That is the guardian ad litem, yes?
A Yes.
Q
“… dated 27 February but written earlier gave prominence to this aspect of the case. It is right to say that neither the local authority nor the guardian say that they have now ruled out Munchausen’s, but it is accepted that this cannot now be advanced as a ground for the necessary relief by which the threshold is crossed since there is no evidence at this stage [my emphasis] to support it”.
Pausing there, as you said, you did not have Professor Southall.
A No, exactly.
Q The rest of it I leave for the moment and take you down to the bottom of the page.
“As to this point, it should be borne in mind that it does not follow that, because the local authority have at this stage abandoned that particular argument that there are reasonable grounds for believing that M2 is at significant risk because of Munchausen’s on the part of mother, all other grounds which they have advanced have to be treated as unfounded, far from it.”
Then at letter F to G on that page Mr Tyson took you to the paragraph ending at F. I am going to pick it up just under that.
“What is more important is that Professor Southall is out of the country and so has not had the chance to hear any of the evidence adduced in this case, he has not given evidence himself and he has not been cross-examined. In those circumstances, although I do not in any way ignore the evidence of Professor Southall in his field, it would be wrong to place too much emphasis on his ‘very preliminary report’.”
Then the last extract is at page 15 at A:
“In the light of the present state of knowledge about these admissions it cannot be said that they provide reasonable grounds for believing risk of significant harm at the hand of the mother, by reason of Munchausen’s or otherwise. True, there is a wish for further investigation, but at this stage the threshold is not passed on this score.”
I took you yesterday to a number of other passages in the judgment or exchanges with the judge, and I just bring those back for completeness. Against that background, Ms Salem, could I just ask you this, by way of summary only. What issues were the local authority, for the minute, still seeking to investigate following the judgment?
A We were still investigating the possibility of the MSBP and the implications that had for M2.
Q Did that investigation – not a concluded investigation – into MSBP include matters beyond merely – I use the word merely – emotional abuse?
A Yes.
Q Were those concerns that you have just described shared by the guardian ad litem?
A Yes, definitely.
Q Again so there is no doubt about this, the guardian ad litem represented M2.
A Yes.
Q I want to come to the interview, but one or two questions before I look at it in any detail. The idea of sitting in with a paediatrician when an interview takes place with a parent, where non-accidental injury is suspected, is that a novel idea?
A No, it is not a novel idea, no.
Q Have you sat in on such instances before?
A I have, yes.
Q With other paediatricians?
A Yes.
Q Help the Panel, how much experience had you had with sitting in in cases of non-accidental injury where interviews had taken place?
A Numerous.
Q Is it two or four?
A No.
Q Help the Panel.
A Over 18 years worth really.
Q Up to this time.
A Up to that time ten years worth.
Q It is just that the Panel may not have any feel for how many instances of non-accidental injury come through your doors as it were; can you be a little bit more specific?
A At the moment we have 95 children on the child protection register just in North Shropshire so that gives a feel of how many section 47s we would have done. I do not know if that helps.
Q It is perhaps some guidance. It was suggested to you that you had been swept along with the idea that the death of M1 had to be reinvestigated whatever the police were doing. What do you say to that particular expression, “swept along”?
A I find it quite insulting really.
Q What was your approach – help the Panel – from a professional standpoint to the issues which you had to confront?
A I think it was a very professional approach, it was an approach in which I was regularly supervised by my team manager, both formally and informally as per our procedures. It was an approach that involved service managers regularly being updated, it was not a Machiavellian approach and I think we can see there were concerns shared in a multi-agency forum, which is the procedure that we should be following.
Q So in terms of the lead up to this interview when Professor Southall asked you on the morning of the interview, as we know from the contact sheets, did you have any concern about that request, any problems with it?
A I did not, no, and obviously I spoke to my manager about it as well.
Q So far as the interview is concerned (there are a number of individual aspects to it) you told Mr Tyson that Dr Southall challenged, or you adopted the word “challenged”, the explanation given by Mrs M in one or more than one instance, right? Do you have a memory now, just conjuring it up in your head, of that occurring?
A I think, as I said yesterday, it was a case of “Can you help me understand”, and you know, did ask questions, did not just accept.
Q That leads me to the next question: the word “challenge” may mean different things to different people. When you use the word “challenge” – because it is your words we are after – can you explain to the Panel, please, what you mean?
A I certainly did not mean it in a interrogatory way but in a way that questions – when questions were asked to open up the discussion and certainly to enable that discussion to carry on. It was not just an acceptance and merely a noting down; there was some discussion.
Q It was suggested to you by Mr Tyson on behalf of Mrs M that Dr Southall had challenged Mrs M, challenged her assertion that the pole did not break, it was firmly attached to the wall, and that he (Dr Southall) had challenged that account by saying, “I don’t believe you. You are heavier than him”, and your answer this morning was: “I would like to think I would remember that.”
A Yes.
Q Can you help the Panel: why would you like to think that you would remember that if it was said?
A Because it would not be appropriate for somebody to say something like that, certainly a professional.
Q It was suggested to you that in the context of a conversation about syringes that Dr Southall challenged Mrs M’s account and said, “I don’t believe you have never seen an injection being given before”, and your reply was, “If that had been said I would have written it down and remembered it”. Why do you say that?
A Again, because it would be something that I would not have felt was appropriate.
Q I must ask you this, this, of course, is going back to 1998, so that is nine years ago, and I want to ask you about your likely response if you had heard that sort of thing mentioned then as opposed to now: do you see the distinction?
A Yes.
Q Would your response have been as you have described back in 1998?
A Yes, most definitely.
Q Before we move on I want to ask you about the typed document which is at C1/gg/23. You will see on page 26 that it is signed by you and dated 28 April, so it was obviously typed by then, and, as we see signed.
A Yes.
Q When this document was compiled were the events of the interview the day before fresh in your mind?
A I did them on the day of the interview, and, yes, they were fresh in my mind.
Q Or whether it was on the 27th or the 28th matters not greatly for my present purposes, but the question is whether the events were fresh in your mind.
A Yes, very.
Q If there had been any expressions or assertions or accusations which were inappropriate or unprofessional would you have been able to record those in this document?
A Yes, I would have recorded them in this document.
Q Why would you have done that?
A Because this was a record of what had happened and the discussions that took place.
Q For what purpose might this record be put?
A I am not sure what you mean. Obviously this would go into my file.
Q It would go into your file?
A Yes.
Q Let me ask you directly: would those records, including this document, at some stage might there be a possibility that those would be subject to scrutiny in a court?
A Yes.
Q Leaving that to one side for a moment: I will ask you about the handwritten document which is D21/H, a six page document. Mr Tyson took you to the sixth page. Just so there is no doubt about this: we see at the bottom there is a fax number which says “P.07”, page 7, that is a fax enumeration. Are you certain that there were only ever six pages of your note?
A Yes.
Q We will see at the bottom, as you indicated earlier, that the last three lines are blank. If you look in the body of this document, can you help the Panel but take a minute to check it, is there any reference to the demonstration that Mrs M carried out in relation to the belt.
A (After a pause) No.
Q Put that on one side and go back to C1/gg/25: that is your typewritten note.
A Yes.
Q The penultimate paragraph appears to be replicated by the ending of the handwritten document.
A Sorry, you have lost me, which page?
Q Page 25 of tab gg, the typewritten document, towards the bottom, the penultimate paragraph, as Mr Tyson demonstrated, appears to represent the ending of your handwritten note.
A Yes.
Q In the typewritten note there are then passages about the belt, and then over the page there is a reference to the demonstration, all right?
A Yes.
Q Did you watch the demonstration?
A Yes.
Q Can you think now why there is no reference to the demonstration of the belt tying incident at the end of the handwritten document?
A I can only presume because I was trying to understand and watch.
Q Whilst you have tab gg/25 open, Mr Tyson suggested that Dr Southall had said to Mrs M, “You must tell us” – that is about how the belt was tied – “to prove your own innocence”, and you said this morning, “Well there is a reference to ‘innocence’ in the typed note …”
A Yes.
Q … and it is now that that I am going to ask you to look at. Look at the last paragraph:
“Mrs M initially declined to talk to Professor Southall about how the belt was tied around [M1’s] neck. Mrs M said that she would be pleased to talk about it, if it cleared her name, but she had been advised not to by her solicitor. Professor Southall told Mrs M that he felt that this was a crucial piece of information that was needed. Mrs M did tell Professor Southall as she felt she wanted to prove her innocence and that she could do this through explaining how the belt was tied.”
Is that an accurate account of how the exchange involving the use of the word “innocence” arose?
A I believe so, yes.
Q Was there any suggestion by Dr Southall at this stage of the interview that Mrs M’s solicitors advice was the wrong advice?
A No, not that I recall, no.
Q Would that have been an appropriate or inappropriate comment, in your opinion, for Dr Southall to have said?
A I do not think it would have been appropriate, no.
Q If Dr Southall had said to Mrs M, and I am summarising, “You should tell us because unless you do so it means you have got something to hide”, or words to that effect, would that have been an appropriate or inappropriate thing for Dr Southall to have said?
A Inappropriate, totally.
Q Would you have made a note of that?
A Yes.
Q Would you have told your team leader about that?
A I certainly would, yes.
Q The Panel can take, obviously, quite apart from anything else, the typed document at face value and make a judgment as to the account there set out by you, either on the 27 or 28 April 1998, that is on the one hand: please, can I ask you about this, Mr Tyson has suggested to you that during the course of this interview that there repeated expressions of disbelief by Professor Southall. He has suggested that there were heated exchanges. He has suggested that Dr Southall embarked upon an aggressive cross-examination. He has suggested that there were challenging answers, not in the sense you mean though, but in the proper use of that term, a challenge: do you understand?
A Yes.
Q And that there was, if I may use this expression, a “full frontal”, direct allegation of murder: did any of that happen?
A No.
Q Are you sure of that?
A I am sure that I would remember if that had happened.
Q Would you have made a note of it?
A I would have made a note of it and I would have taken it to my manager.
Q Would you have been concerned?
A Very.
Q And so far as this interview is concerned from beginning to end of it what was your mindset?
A What do you mean?
Q Well what was your “mindset”, it is a phrase Mr. Tyson used? How did you approach it? Did you have a fixed view? Did you have a closed mind? What was your mindset?
A No, I had a very open view, as I have had an open view all the way through, and certainly was there to gather information.
MR COONAN: Miss Salem, that is all I seek to ask you in re-examination. Thank you very much.
THE CHAIRMAN: Miss Salem, the Panel will have quite a number of questions for you; it is open to us to ask questions at this stage. I know that Panel members had also requested a little time following the end of re-examination to consider the questions, so we felt that under all the circumstances, and given the time of day, the length of time you have been on the witness stand today, that it would be best to adjourn now and let the Panel ask questions of you on Monday, if that is acceptable, following which it may be the case that there will be further questions from both counsel arising from matters the Panel has raised.
So we propose to adjourn now until 9.30 on Monday morning. I do not know whether, Mr. Coonan, you have any other matters – housekeeping or otherwise – that you wish to draw to our attention before we go?
MR. COONAN: Not to your attention, madam, no, there are matters that Mr. Tyson and I have to talk about to advance the case and we can do that after you have risen. Could I just make one observation? I know that Miss Salem goes home to Shropshire and she will wish, I am sure, to take the files with her but I am sure she will bring them back on Monday morning.
THE CHAIRMAN: And I must remind Miss Salem that she remains on oath over the weekend and that means that the case and evidence must be discussed with no one at all I am afraid over the weekend.
A That is fine.
THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. We will see everyone again on Monday morning at 9.30.
(The Panel adjourned until 9.30 a.m. on Monday, 12 November 2007)