| GMC Case - the papers have been served |
|
|
|
| Saturday, 14 March 2009 | |
|
Our lawyers have now issued the application for judicial review of the GMC decision not to refer the architects of MTAS to the Fitness to Practise Committee. We have raised most of the money we need, and are hoping that supporters will make up the shortfall soon. The grounds of the case are given below.
We are immensely grateful to our supporters who have donated money and made this case possible. If you have not yet donated then please do so - you can do this on our Donate Page. The papers were served in the High Court of Justice, Queens Bench Division, Administrive Court, in the matter of an application for permission to apply for judicial review between The Queen on the application of Remedy UK Lrd (CLAIMANT) and the General Medical Council (DEFENDANT). The brief grounds of the case are given below. A few details have been removed from public scrutiny at this stage. This case concerns the jurisdiction of the General Medical Council ("GMC") to consider complaints against doctors who have taken managerial decisions with serious consequences for the medical profession, the reputation of the profession, and ultimately patient care. In 2006 and 2007 a new scheme was introduced governing the recruitment and training of junior doctors in the United Kingdom. The new scheme failed so comprehensively and caused such widespread public concern that it has been the subject of several highly critical reports, including an Independent Inquiry and a House of Commons Health Select Committee Inquiry. 3. In light of these serious criticisms, Remedy UK Limited ("Remedy"), a doctors' campaigning group, made a complaint to the GMC regarding the role of two senior doctors who were integrally involved in the management and implementation of the new scheme. Remedy alleged that the doctors' conduct fell so far below the standards required of doctors in the exercise of their professional duties as to amount to misconduct and/or deficient professional performance within section 35C(2) of the Medical Act 1983 ("the 1983 Act"). 4. On 12 December 2008 the Registrar of the GMC refused to refer the complaints for further investigation on the basis that the conduct complained about could not fall within section 35C(2) of the 1983 Act because it did not occur in a clinical setting and could not be said to impinge on the doctors' fitness to practise as medical practitioners ("the Decision") [849-850]. For the reasons set out below, the Decision was wrong in law. 5. The Claimant also applies for a Protective Costs Order ("PCO") to enable these proceedings to be brought. The PCO sought from the Court would cap Remedy's potential costs exposure to the Defendant and/or the Interested Parties at £20,000. The reasons for seeking such PCO are fully set out in the witness statement of []. In essence, without the protection of such costs protection Remedy, an organisation of limited means, would not feel able to take the risk of bringing this litigation, notwithstanding the very strong public interest in it. It has raised £18,000 and is confident of raising another £2,000 specifically to fund this litigation. GROUNDS FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW
We have also sent a thousand pages of witness statements, legal arguments and documentary evidence, made up as follows:- Court Documents Claim Form Grounds of Challenge Statement of Claimant’s Costs Statement of [witness] Documents Acting Fairly to Protect Patients (March 2001) [pages 235-236 intentionally missing] House of Commons Hansard Debates (16 April 2007) Royal College of Anaesthetists response to Independent Inquiry into MMC (21 June 2007) Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh (Preliminary Response to MMC Inquiry) (21 June 2007) Review of MTAS and Selection Process 2007 (12 July 2007) Extracts from Health Committee MMC Volume 1 (24 April 2008) Extracts from Health Committee MMC Volume 2 (24 April 2008) Extracts from Health Committee MMC Volume 3 (24 April 2008) Independent Inquiry into MMC by Sir John Tooke (January 2008) Stress, Lies and Red Tape by Whelan, Meerten, Rao, Jarrett, Muthukumaraswamy and Bhugra Elephant in the Room by Martin Talbot Mental Health of Applicants by Lydall, Malik and Bhugra [page 520 intentionally missing] Consensus Statement on the Role of the Doctor Remedy Unaudited Financial Statements (April 2007-April 2008) Email from [] to GMC dated 27 Aug 2008 and Email from [] to GMC dated 17 August 2008 Leigh Day to GMC dated 23 October 2008 GMC to Leigh Day dated 7 Nov 2008 GMC Triage Outcome Document Copy of Smartscript Design v 14 GMC to Leigh Day dated 12 December 2008 Remedy to GMC dated 23 January 2009 Leigh Day to GMC dated 3 February 2009 GMC to Leigh Day dated 17 February 2009 [] Solicitors to Leigh Day dated 18 February 2009 GMC to Remedy dated 25 February 2009 Guidance and Legislation Management for Doctors Fitness to Practice Investigation Manual The Realistic Prospect Test S1, 35C, 35CC, 41A Medical Act 1983 GMC (Fitness to Practice Rules) 2004
We have also issued Freedom of Information and Data Protection Act requests for information. Some additional information material to our case has come to light since this application was submitted, and there may be some relevant information which has remained undisclosed under an exemption claimed by the GMC even following an appeal. We will be looking at whether to take this on to the Information Commissioners Officer. 
|