Professionals Against Child Abuse

PACA has released the following Press Release in response to information on the Channel 4 Cutting Edge programme website that stated they were going to perpetuate a story that is now finished with.

PACA Press Release, 12 May 2011 – The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has ruled that there is no case against Professor David Southall for allegedly causing harm to a 5-year old boy, over twenty years ago—allegations which PACA has learned from the Channel 4 website will be included in their TV programme, Cutting Edge, aired this evening.

Since 2003, the South Wales police have been investigating allegations made by Mr and Mrs Hollisey-McLean over child protection proceedings in which their son was taken into care following Professor Southall and many other professional’s concerns that his parents were abusing him. The parents alleged that their son was brain damaged during his time in care as a result of “unethical” experiments carried out in the University Hospital of Wales in 1991 as part of the child protection investigation. Professor Southall was actually an external expert involved in organising non-invasive overnight recordings of their son’s breathing for four weeks and was one of a team of more than 20 professionals involved in his care.

The police interviewed Professor Southall over the parents’ allegations in 2009 and in 2010, referred the matter to the CPS.

On 24th March 2011, Professor Southall was advised by the South Wales Police that the Crown Prosecution Service had: “completed their detailed review of all the documentation submitted to the police” and “have concluded that there should be no criminal prosecution against you”.

In addition, and in 2005, the GMC rejected complaints against Professor Southall over these same allegations following an analysis by the Hollisey-McLean’s own medical expert working under GMC proceedings who did not back up their allegations.

The Filmmaker and Channel 4 knew about the CPS rulings and GMC findings.

John Bridson, Director of PACA says: “The recent ruling by the CPS, and analysis by the family’s own medical expert under GMC proceedings six years ago, shows that there is absolutely no evidence to uphold the allegations made by the Hollisey-McLeans against Professor Southall, which according to the programme’s information on Channel 4 website are repeated in the Cutting Edge Programme today”.

The allegations made by Mr and Mrs Hollisey McLean with support from a renowned group campaigning against Professor Southall’s child protection work have incited mass biased media coverage over the past ten years—three television programmes; two radio programmes and multiple articles in tabloid and broadsheet newspapers denigrating Professor Southall and his work and supporting these parent’s specific allegations.

The earlier negative media coverage and today’s programme were timed to cause maximum damage to Professor Southall by coinciding with Professor Southall’s appearances at General Medical Council (GMC) fitness to practice hearings.

This is also the second time that Professor Southall’s work has been investigated by the police following complaints made by the same organised campaigners against his work. The previous investigation involved allegations that Professor Southall had forged parental consent in a research trial involving a safe, non-invasive ventilator. This investigation closed in October 2002 when the police stated: “there is no evidence which could conceivably satisfy the CPS’s tests of 1) sufficiency of evidence and 2) Being in the public interest to prosecute”.

John Bridson of PACA concludes: “The only proof is that by giving air time to repeated lies, the film maker and Channel 4 have contributed to damaging crucial child protection work, which ultimately harms children.”

Following a negative response from the GMC to our open letter published in the BMJ, a judicial review was put in motion by a senior paediatrician, with PACA’s assistance, to have Mrs Penny Mellor removed from the GMC expert group on child protection. Some days after the papers were delivered to the GMC Mrs Mellor resigned.

PACA issued this press release today.

3rd November 2010

Re Mrs Mellor’s resignation from the GMC Expert Group on Child Protection

PACA welcomes the resignation of Mrs Penny Mellor from the expert group set up by the GMC to review doctors’ conduct in child protection matters. Mrs Mellor has led a long-standing campaign against professionals who take a lead in complex and life-threatening child abuse, including paediatricians, pathologists, radiologists and social workers. She has spun a series of false allegations that have impacted on the lives of professionals, as well as the resources of the NHS and GMC, and not least continues to post confidential material concerning families involved in child protection proceedings on public web sites.

PACA’s original complaint regarding Mrs Mellor’s inclusion in the group was published on 15th July. Niall Dickson, Chief Executive of the GMC, chose not to respond publicly, but in a belated response to PACA of 24th August, he chose to ignore not only the above issues, but also that she had been severely criticised by a judge when convicted of conspiring to abduct a child from the protection of the court.

We expect the GMC to comply with their statement that they seek the “views from all groups who are affected by GMC guidance”: that is, the children, who have been affected by abuse and by other child protection agencies such as the police and teachers. In this way, future progress of this group will hopefully lead to a productive outcome and be accompanied by an increased willingness of professionals to engage in child protection work. The GMC have done much to discourage doctors’ involvement in the last 10 years – it is within their remit to change this for the benefit of vulnerable children.

PACA Press release – Failure of Medical Regulation – time for an inquiry into the integrity of the GMC after David Southall’s appeal win.

PACA is delighted that justice has been achieved in the case of David Southall, with the Court of Appeal today overturning the decision of the GMC’s Fitness to Practise (FtP) Panel in December 2007 to erase his name from the medical register.

The Appeal Court determined that the GMC Panel had been prejudiced by an inappropriate view that David Southall should not have undertaken an interview of a mother to investigate the death of her child. The three judges considered the Panel’s approach “was not one based on evidence”. PACA always considered the finding of the FtP Panel perverse and another example of the GMC’s harassment of leading child protection doctors. [...]

Download the full press release as PDF: Failure of Medical Regulation – time for an inquiry into the integrity of the GMC after David Southall’s appeal win

PACA has been supporting a Consultant Paediatrician who worked in Haringey before Baby P died.

This is a link to an article on the Sunday Telegraph website:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/baby-p/6739202/If-Great-Ormond-Street-had-listened-to-me-Baby-Peter-would-still-be-alive-says-consultant.html

On reading this article PACA has released the following press statement:

6/12/2009

STATEMENT BY PACA: DR KIM HOLT SHOULD BE THANKED AND REINSTATED

[Download PDF version]

For immediate release:

PACA (Professionals Against Child Abuse) wishes to express its support for Dr Kim Holt, Consultant Paediatrician, following the publication of information about concerns she and others raised in 2006 about the management of children’s health services in Haringey.[1]

Dr. Holt was one of four Consultant Paediatricians who wrote to their managers listing numerous concerns which they had raised for at least two years at that stage.[2] Many of these were the same as factors identified by the Care Quality Commission when it reviewed the death of Baby P.[3] Only one of the four Consultants is currently in post.

PACA notes with concern the fact that Dr Holt has been excluded from her job for over two years, is currently on a temporary secondment, with no long term job security and that she has always been clear that she wanted to return to her original post. PACA notes that Dr. Holt stated that considerable efforts were made to have her removed.

It appears that Dr. Holt is yet another NHS whistleblower who has been badly treated by the NHS after raising legitimate concerns. This is unacceptable. Following the Stafford scandal, health ministers repeatedly stated that whistleblowers enjoy full legal protection from the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998.4 If this were truly the case, Dr. Holt would not have suffered these detriments. We would welcome a statement from a minister on this matter now.

PACA suggests that Dr. Holt should be thanked by her employer, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Trust, which should also offer her a public apology. It should reinstate her and supply the necessary resources to allow her to do her job. It should also compensate her for the unnecessary costs she has incurred, including those relating to unnecessary legal costs and maintaining her skills whilst excluded from the workplace. We do not see that any other course of action is in the interests of vulnerable children, the wider community, and the NHS.

We note that Great Ormond Street’s spokesperson finds it “difficult to comment until an independent investigation is completed.” We understand that the report from the investigation was supposed to have been published in September 2009. Ongoing delay appears to prevent Great Ormond Street from addressing important issues. We believe that it is in the public interest for that report to be published. When it is, PACA members will study the report to see what implications it may have for other individuals involved.

John Bridson Chair PACA

—

Notes

1 BMA News Review, front page headline, 21 November 2009; Sunday Telegraph, 6 December 2009.

2 A. Gilligan, Doctors raised alarm over ‘high risk’ at Baby P clinic, Evening Standard 12th May 2009

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23689559-doctors-raised-alarm-over-high-risk-at-baby-p-clinic.do

3 CQC, Review of the involvement and action taken by health bodies in relation to the case of Baby P, 2009 [Draws on previous independent investigation] http://www.cqc.org.uk/_db/_documents/Baby_P.pdf

4 See, for example, Ben Bradshaw MP, Minister of State for Health, House of Commons Hansard 18 May 2009.col 1227W.

Information about PACA: Children are the most vulnerable members of society. Sometimes the very people who are expected to protect them place them at risk. It is then that professionals who work with children have a duty to protect them. PACA believes that vulnerable children need dedicated paediatricians, nurses, social workers, teachers and the law to protect them. PACA was formed in response to high profile cases against paediatricians at the General Medical Council at which it became clear that the present regulatory systems did not protect children and were open to abuse by those who sought to discredit professionals who stood up publicly for children’s rights. PACA advocates for children’s rights by campaigning for regulatory organisations to be trained in child protection, for the interests of the child to be paramount, and for professionals who stand up for children to receive fair treatment.

Following the erasure of Dr David Southall from the GMC medical register.

PACA is saddened to learn that David Southall’s appeal in the High Court
today was unsuccessful in overturning the decision of the GMC’s Fitness to
Practise Committee to erase him from the medical register in December 2007.

The GMC have held three Fitness to Practise Hearings against David Southall:
in 2004, 2006-7 and in 2008. Only in the 2007 Hearing did the outcome lead
to a permanent restriction on David Southall’s ability to practise medicine.
PACA believes the GMC have acted inappropriately and have been improperly
influenced by a skilful and hostile media campaign by parents involved in
alleged child protection cases and their advocates. PACA is now concerned
that today’s result will have further serious and negative effects on the
willingness with which doctors will engage in child protection.

Internationally acclaimed and eminent paediatricians involved in child
protection have sustained repeated harassment in recent years, including
from the GMC. PACA considers that the GMC preliminary assessment procedures
have been ignorant of the nature of child protection procedures in the
Family Courts and that this case should never have been brought against
David Southall; that he has always given honestly held opinions, based on
extensive experience in complex child protection cases and solely with the
purpose of protecting children has never been questioned.

The disciplinary actions of the GMC, today supported by the High Court, will
be a further deterrent to paediatricians and other health professionals from
engagement in child protection work. Last year, the Royal College of
Paediatrics and Child Health voted overwhelmingly to express their grave
concerns about the GMC’s actions in the cases of both Professor Meadow and
David Southall. PACA considers today’s action will be a disservice to
children. The GMC should act only to encourage doctors to report child
protection concerns and engage in child protection work, by making them feel
safe from disciplinary actions, unless the doctor has been shown to have
acted incompetently or with malice.

We will provide full comment when we have read the full judgement.

[Update - the full judgement can be read here: Final_Southall_22_05_09.pdf (236 kb)]

Once again PACA is concerned to find information about the actions of the GMC in the case of a highly respected paediatrician involved in child protection work that shows a failure to follow natural justice and due process in their disciplinary procedures.

Dr Leonard Williams, who is a member of PACA, was asked to give evidence at a review fitness to practice hearing about Professor Southall at the GMC in 2008. His pre-hearing instructions were that he should accept the findings of the 2004 panel, and debate whether the sanctions imposed upon Professor Southall should be lifted. As such there was no need to read Professor Southall’s original report. In his written evidence, he accepted and reiterated the criticisms of the 2004 panel but argued that it was right, with the passage of time, to lift those sanction. However while giving oral evidence; he was questioned about the merits of the 2004 hearing.

Shortly after giving his evidence, Dr Williams was sent information which convinced him that some of the statements that he had made about the actions of Professor Southall in the Clark case had been incorrect. As required by the GMC’s own advice to expert witnesses, he was required to make this clear in writing to the panel/judge and he attempted to do this by writing to Professor Southall’s defence team, instructing that his letter be shown to the panel. An objection was raised to the entry of this letter and the legal assessor who works for the GMC advised that the panel should not see Dr Williams’ letter.

We find this decision almost unbelievable and once again reveals injustice meted out to Professor Southall. The result was that the GMC Panel criticised some of Professor Southall’s actions based on incorrect expert data. The media picked up the criticisms and ran with those rather than the main findings, which were that Professor Southall had been correct in contacting the child protection team following his viewing of a television programme that to him raised concerns about the safety of a child and a possible miscarriage of justice resulting in a mother being imprisoned. The GMC Panel also determined that the concerns he had raised about a nosebleed in a 6 week old baby 10 days before that baby was, according to the Criminal Court, suffocated, were not only appropriate but also supplemented by new research that had been published since his hearing before the GMC in 2004. The adverse reports in the media were also compounded by an article in the British Medical Journal which made strong reference to the criticisms. (NEWS: Southall is allowed to return to child protection work. Dyer BMJ 2008; 337: a1811)

One important consequence of this relates to Professor Southall’s imminent appeal in the High Court against the actions of the GMC in 2006-2007. The incorrect criticisms of some of Professor Southall’s report, produced for a pre-trial liaison meeting for the Family Court, may have impaired his Appeal if it wasn’t for the integrity of Dr Williams, who has made public the failure of the GMC to address his incorrect expert evidence.

Download this Press Release

Download the Letter

Read the Letter online on the BMJ website

Press Release – 10/02/2009

The GMC Fitness to Practise Committee has now acknowledged shortcomings, pointed out by PACA, in GMC procedures relating to complaints involving child protection. Following a Freedom of Information request, PACA has now discovered that the GMC plans to change its procedures.

The GMC acknowledged that they currently have no power to deal with serial or patently vexatious complainants, and that this may create unfairness for individual doctors who are either the specific target of a vexatious complainant or the random target of a serial complainant. Such circumstances are well recognised in Child Protection work, where some perpetrators of child abuse try and avoid responsibility for their actions by criticising the professionals involved.
The GMC has commented ‘the current rules do not provide us with the flexibility to deal as effectively as we would like with serial complaints or complaints that are clearly vexatious. Although such complaints are relatively uncommon, they can be very resource intensive and are unfair to doctors.’ At a meeting of the Fitness to Practice Committee in November 2008, GMC members agreed to pursue a change to their rules to allow them to reject serial or patently vexatious complaints.

A PACA spokesperson said ‘We are extremely pleased that the GMC has responded constructively to our reasoned arguments about the particular circumstances of complaints in Child Protection. Whilst we are in general highly supportive of the work of the GMC in maintaining professional standards to promote patient safety, we feel that the needs of children for protection were previously being overlooked. ‘

Doctors involved in this work may find themselves caught between the interests of parents and children, and may find themselves the subject of complaint by aggrieved parents who have been implicated in child abuse. As we see from the tragedy of cases like Victoria Climbie and others since, if children are to be properly protected, then professionals must be able to voice and act on reasonably held concerns without fear of being accused of malpractice. This GMC decision is a major step forward and we applaud them for it. ‘
Further information and comment is available from PACA via

http://www.paca.org.uk

Downloadable version of the press release (PDF)

Press Release 21st September 2008

PACA welcomes the GMC removing the sanction against Dr David Southall, which prevented him from undertaking child protection work. Dr Southall, like Professor Meadow, has undertaken pioneering work in the field of child protection, which is internationally acclaimed.

PACA has had major concerns about the GMC’s Fitness to Practice procedures, especially in their dealing with complaints in cases where child abuse was considered. PACA has seen leading experts inappropriately censured by the GMC and vilified by the media. This has reduced the willingness with which paediatricians will report suspicions of child abuse and engage in child protection work, including acting as expert witnesses. This is of no benefit to the welfare of children, especially given that child protection is everyone’s business and forms an important part of the practice of most paediatricians. Recent GMC guidance states: “Your first concern must be the safety of children and young people” (Rule 61, GMC Guidance for Doctors Treating 0 – 18 Year Olds, 2007).

PACA has attempted to engage with the GMC, but Professor Catto, President of the GMC, and Finlay Scott, CEO, have responded that PACA is “painting a misleading picture, thus adding to the very problem they say they wish to resolve”. Yet members of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health voted virtually unanimously for a motion at their AGM in March this year on a number of areas of grave concern and called for the GMC to review their Fitness to Practice procedures as a matter of urgency.

We consider the GMC have been wrong in imposing sanctions against Dr Southall and their Fitness to Practice Panel was wrong in 2004 to have found him guilty of serious professional misconduct. His legal advice not to appeal the GMC finding was in retrospect in our opinion the wrong decision.

Many of the findings of fact in the 2004 Hearing were merely the opinions of panel members, and substantially influenced by the one paediatric expert who was called and acted for the GMC and Clark family. This expert, Professor Tim David, had numerous conflicts of interest: he had acted in the Family Court with an opinion opposed to Dr Southall’s, failed to follow due process in the child protection process and finally denigrated Dr Southall’s view in the Family Court.

At no time was Dr Southall acting as an expert in the Family Court himself, but had contacted child protection services with concerns as an informed member of the public. The hearing just completed, reviewing the sanction, heard the Dr Southall’s behaviour was completely in?line with his role under the 1989 Children Act. Indeed in documenting his “points of concern” to Professor David, Dr Southall expressed himself strongly as is common in an exchange of views between colleagues.

The GMC seem unable to regulate judiciously cases involving leading child protection professionals. They were unable to recognise their error in erasing Professor Sir Roy Meadow from the medical register, and we believe they have inappropriately censured Dr Southall. His appeal against erasure from the medical register is currently awaited. The GMC must acknowledge their past mistakes – we call again for Professor Catto and Mr Finlay Scott to consider their positions. We expect to see the GMC move forward with an urgent review of its approach to child protection cases.

Interested parties may like to read the transcripts of the recent hearing reviewing Professor Southall’s sanctions, which we hope will become available on our website www.paca.org.uk.

Press Release: 25 July 2008

PACA is extremely concerned about the contents of an article that has been published today in the British Medical Journal [BMJ 2008; 337:a907].

It reveals how the GMC has failed to take advice concerning its selection of expert witnesses to judge the work David Southall, Martin Samuels, and Andrew Spencer.

It confirms that the GMC has been besieged by a campaign of vexatious complainants involved in child protection matters but has shown little concern for this or any apparent attempts to recognise and fairly acknowledge this campaign. 

It reveals maladministration on a large scale within the GMC and also shows how the Chief Medical Officer for England became involved with the GMC’s investigation into the three doctor’s medical research work. 
 
This article adds to the continuing concerns that PACA has for the serious effects the GMC’s actions have had on child protection work in this country.

Dr David Southall was erased from the medical register in December 2007 by the GMC. As it turns out this action was against the GMC’s own rules about erasure and he has subsequently been restored to the register pending appeal. In response to this volte face PACA issued the following press release outlining the issues facing the GMC in their case against Southall.

PACA has had major concerns about the General Medical Council’s Fitness to Practice procedures in high profile cases of paediatricians who have led the way in child protection work. PACA considers the GMC’s actions have reduced the willingness with which paediatricians will report suspicions of child abuse and engage in child protection work, including acting as expert witnesses. PACA has attempted to engage with the GMC, but Professor Catto, President of the GMC, and Finlay Scott, CEO, have responded that PACA is “painting a misleading picture, thus adding to the very problem they say they wish to resolve”.
 
However, last week, PACA’s concerns were overwhelmingly supported by a motion at the Annual General Meeting of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health. The motion listed the areas of concern (see below) and called for the GMC to review the Fitness to Practice procedures as a matter of urgency. They recommended involvement of the RCPCH, the Department of Health, Department for Children, Schools and Families, Social Services Inspectorate and National Children’s Bureau. Unlike the GMC, these bodies better understand the relevant legislation and practice.

PACA is now further disturbed by the announcement today that the GMC failed to comply with its own regulations when they applied an immediate sanction against Professor Southall, resulting in his inability to work as a doctor. The GMC’s sanction led to Professor Southall’s immediate suspension from clinical and charity work, including his honorary medical directorship of the aid agency Childhealth Advocacy International (CAI).  This sanction was applied in the absence of evidence that his clinical or CAI work had caused any harm and had in fact brought enormous benefits to patients.  As a direct result of this sanction, Professor Southall had resigned from his consultant post at the University Hospital of North Staffordshire. Furthermore, the actions of the GMC against him have seriously impaired CAI’s ability to raise funds for its humanitarian aid work.

At least the GMC’s have conceded that they had made an error, resulting in cancellation of the suspension. However, it compounds their existing inability to regulate judiciously in cases involving leading child protection professionals. Given the GMC’s inability to recognise their error in erasing Professor Sir Roy Meadow from the medical register, described by a high court judge as approaching the irrational, and apologise to him, we have little expectation that the GMC will move forward with an urgent review of its procedures, as voted for at the RCPCH AGM. It is now time that the GMC reviewed the sanctions and erasure that they applied to Professor Southall’s cases in 2004 and 2007 respectively. In the view of PACA, they were both incorrect judgements.

Currently the GMC will receive complaints from anyone (having no vexatious complaints policy) – it then investigates and prosecutes these complaints, sits in judgement on its own investigation and finally decides what penalty should be applied. This is hardly a fair or balanced process and certainly not one that fulfils a doctor’s right to a fair hearing under Article 6 of the European Convention. Our experience of the GMC responses to its errors lead us only to conclude that it is incompetent and disingenuous in the way it attempts to defend the indefensible.

——

Motion for RCPCH AGM – York University, April 2008

The College has grave concerns about the actions of the GMC relating to proceedings involving child protection work directly or indirectly. These actions include:

1. The GMC erased from the register one paediatrician acting as an expert witness in a case where two children had died and where the mother was tried for murder. The erasure was quashed by the High Court, but the GMC have not acknowledged that the erasure decision was wrong and have not satisfactorily explained why they consider it is not related to the child protection field. As a consequence, paediatricians have been deterred from acting as expert witnesses in cases involving child injury or death, many of which would be classified as possible child protection cases.

2. The GMC sanctioned a paediatrician for reporting concerns to the statutory authorities for child protection and, describing the doctors’ behaviour as “precipitate” and criticising his evidence-based opinion given in good faith, found him guilty of serious professional misconduct and suspended him from further child protection work. This contravenes the stated professional and public duty to report child protection concerns and the latest guidance issued by the GMC itself. As a consequence, paediatricians now feel less certain of the correct way to proceed and may therefore be less likely to report child protection concerns.

3. The GMC erased from the register a paediatrician who was exploring with a parent the mechanism of death of their child at the request of social services in the context of care proceedings. The parent alleged that the paediatrician had accused her of murder, despite evidence to the contrary from the senior social worker present who along with the paediatrician took notes throughout the interview. As a consequence, many paediatricians are now more reluctant to participate in child death reviews or indeed explore with parents possible mechanisms for sudden death.

4. The GMC have repeatedly relied on an expert witness known to have opposing views to the doctor being investigated and who had advised contrary to that doctor in the first of the above cases. This raises serious questions about the impartiality of this expert, particularly as the GMC did not use any other expert evidence. As a consequence, paediatricians feel that GMC hearings in the field of child protection have not had the benefit of truly impartial advice representing current mainstream professional practice.

5. The GMC have undertaken a number of investigations on paediatricians who have already been the subject of investigations by other bodies and have been exonerated. The GMC have not inquired about such investigations, or have failed to take account of these previous investigations. We consider that this represents double jeopardy and demonstrates an unfair and incomplete process. As a consequence, paediatricians have become less willing to be involved in child protection work, knowing it may result in multiple complaints and investigations.

6. GMC registered doctors working in other specialities, who were convicted of various crimes, including assaults on children and viewing child pornography (offences which would render them unemployable as paediatricians) have been reinstated to the register. As a consequence, paediatricians feel treated more harshly than other specialities by the GMC.

7. The GMC does not automatically inform the doctor when it decides not to proceed with a complaint. College members know that complaints in child protection are rising and are under extreme and often public stress when they receive such a complaint. As a consequence, paediatricians are poorly informed by the GMC of progress in their own personal case.

8. The GMC is unwilling to state whether it has received multiple complaints from the same person(s) acting as part of a campaign against factitious and induced illness, quoting data protection legislation. Paediatricians have been asking the GMC to develop a policy for dealing with vexatious complaints and serial complainants. As a consequence, paediatricians feel the GMC is not taking their concerns on board.

For the above reasons, the College continues to have grave concerns over current GMC procedures for dealing with cases related to child protection. We call upon the GMC to review these procedures as a matter of urgency and involve in the review this College and other bodies such as the Department of Health, Department for Children, Schools and Families, Social Services Inspectorate and National Children’s Bureau, who have an understanding of the relevant legislation and practice, in order to support continued quality work by paediatricians in this field to the ultimate benefit of children and their families.