Category Archives: justice

Exclusive: New mediation demanded for 50s women as judicial review is postponed

Posted on by

CEDAWinLAW takes the fight to the UN in Geneva

Former judgeJocelynne Scutt (middle) with Professor Natasha Despoja, a CEDAW committee member ((left) and Dr Elgun Safarov ( deputy chairman ( Right)

CEDAWinLAW, the successor organisation to Backto60, has decided to postpone its legal action on behalf of all 1950s women to force Mel Stride, the work and pensions secretary, to go to mediation over the long standing fight over the six year delay in paying out women’s pensions.

A statement from the organisation emphasises that this is a postponement not a total withdrawal of the case since preliminary work by their lawyers has found that Mell Stride did act unlawfully by not agreeing to mediation. Effectively it leaves a Sword of Damocles hanging over Mr Stride and Liz Kendall, his potential Labour successor as work and pensions secretary, should the party win the next general election.

The statement reads:

CEDAWinLAW has decided to postpone its action against the Secretary of State for Work & Pensions. Whilst its case is clear that the Secretary of State refused unlawfully, reasonable invitations to mediate made by Garden Court, it has decided to wait upon further developments before proceeding with its judicial review which it will now withdraw. Funds generously donated have been used in launching the judicial review and taking advice. Those funds fell short in timing of providing funds for a full-blown fight in front to the court. Our counsel said of the fight; “This is an important challenge for so many 1950’s Women in this country. The weight of the evidence indicates a grave injustice to them, and we will robustly represent their interests as we move forward with the assistance of our legal team.”. Whilst in the short term we have not achieved our goal for 1950s women’s pension rights, we have brought further notice to their plight and increased the political pressure which continues to build. We shall succeed for all those women

The decision will be disappointing for the women as an early court hearing on mediation was seen as better bet than the compensation likely to be awarded by the Parliamentary Ombudsman which is in the region of £1000 to £2900. The Department of Work and Pensions opposes compensation to any of the women either via the Ombudsman’s guidelines or through mediation.

CEDAWinLAW was able to raise money easily for the first stage to allow lawyers to prepare a case but lack of further wider publicity meant there was not enough money to continue to a full hearing.

WASPI did not help either. It expressed interest in becoming a party to the case and their lawyers demanded access to the all the papers. They also threatened CEDAWinLAW with costs unless they handed them. When they got access to the papers they decided not to proceed and instead their board sided with the Department of Work and Pensions case against CEDAWinLAW . The WASPI board quote the DWP’s contention that Australian judge Jocelynne Scutt’s report which found discrimination against all 3.8 million had no standing. Unfortunately for them this is not the view of the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, whose deputy chairman, Dr Elgun Safarov, gave evidence to the people’s tribunal run by Jocelynne Scutt, who regard the findings as very important.

This continual divide between the organisations which includes banning WASPI women seeing any of my articles on their sites has been a gift to the DWP who don’t want to see the women get a penny.

However other developments mean that is not the end of the story. The UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women , has already received from Jocelynne Scutt a paper to on discrimination in women’s pensions in the UK. This can form the basis for an inquiry which would put the UK in the dock.

CEDAW are already not pleased that after 40 years membership of CEDAW, the UK has not passed all the legislation to comply with the convention, and has written to the UK about this. The UK at the moment is trying to ignore this but cannot stop the body setting up an inquiry.

Mel Stride

Other developments will happen when Parliament returns on April 15. Mel Stride has already met a senior politician and, fresh from his universal roasting by MPs from all parties on the Ombudsman’s report, is beginning to think he will have to offer something.

The SNP is also active. Patricia Gibson, the SNP’s Attorney General spokesman and MP for North Ayrshire and Arran, is planning to put up a backbench motion calling on Mel Stride to agree to WASPI’s demand for compensation and wants to press it to a vote. But given the different political rivalries in the Commons, there could be a danger it could be lost.

CEDAWinLAW is also drawing up a strategy to continue to press for mediation. More news on this is likely to be announced soon.

One-Time
Monthly
Yearly

Make a one-time donation

Make a monthly donation

Make a yearly donation

Choose an amount

£5.00
£10.00
£20.00
£5.00
£15.00
£100.00
£5.00
£15.00
£100.00

Or enter a custom amount

£

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

DonateDonate monthlyDonate yearly

Please donate to Westminster Confidential

£10.00

MPs call again for reform of the antiquated Parliamentary Ombudsman – but ignore the plight of 50swomen

Posted on by
William Wragg MP: official Portrait

Also ” Ombudsman friend “of Rob Behrens facing a corruption hearing in Australia

MPs today publish their official annual scrutiny of the work of the Parliamentary Ombudsman but what it doesn’t say is more important than what it says.

The committee call again – this time for a manifesto commitment from all political parties – to reform the 57 year old Ombudsman legislation – to give the Ombudsman and Health Service Commissioner more clout and powers to ensure his or her recommendations are implemented This follows the blank refusal of this government to take any action to do so. Michael Gove when he was in the Cabinet Office ruled out even a draft bill.

In a desperate plea the chairman, Tory William Wragg, who is also quitting at the election, says:

“As we have done annually for many years now to no avail, we are once again calling on the Government to bring forward what is now very long-overdue legislative reform of the PHSO, so that it can provide the level of service the public requires from it.

“Given the necessity of PHSO reform, we urge all political parties to include a commitment to reforming the legislation relating to the PHSO in their election manifestos ahead of the next General Election.”

Whether the Tories will commit to this must be unlikely since it suits the present government, particularly the Department for Work and Pensions, and to some extent the NHS, to have a weak Ombudsman who can be safely ignored if they don’t like what he says.

The Parliamentary Ombudsman’s Office has welcomed the committee’s statement:

“We are pleased to see the Committee’s support for reform of our outdated legislative framework and their call for Government to reconsider its position and consult with stakeholders ahead of the General Election. We agree with their sentiment that reform has been ‘neglected’, is ‘long overdue’, and that ‘further delay is no longer tenable’. 

The rest of the report seems a mixture of praise and criticism over the Ombudsman’s performance. He is praised for dealing with a backlog of complaints that followed the Covid 19 pandemic but criticised for the way he didn’t handle well complaints affecting the elderly and the disabled.

Rob Behrens, retiring Parliamentary Ombudsman

But there were two huge elephants in the room missing in the report. Retiring Ombudsman Robert Behrens when he faced MPs had to spend a good part of the session facing criticism from MPs of the huge and unprecedented delay in publishing his report on the plight of 50swomen – some of them WASPI supporters – and recommending compensation for maladminstration in the six year delay in getting their state pension. Indeed his report is taking longer than the actual delay in getting their pensions.

Yet from today’s report you would think this never happened. There is not one word in the report acknowledging this. All there is a footnote referring to the WASPI evidence while the evidence from CEDAWinLAW does not even merit that.

Yet any reader of this blog knows the present draft recommends NO compensation for the women leaving it up to MPs in Parliament to debate whether women should get a penny.

This is more outrageous given that over 500 people know what it says and practically every sitting MP knows the outcome but most are happy to participate in a conspiracy of silence hoping it will go away. WASPI is playing the same game and one is beginning to wonder whether they want to get any money at all.

The other missing information is who is going to be new Ombudsman. The committee inadvertently published the letter sent to the Cabinet Office from Sir Alex Allen, once adviser to David Cameron and Boris Johnson until he resigned, and now a member of the Parliamentary Ombudsman Board – see my blog here– asking for a speedy decision from Rishi Sunak to replace Rob Behrens. Now it is nearly a month since I wrote about this and nothing has happened. The Cabinet Office appears not to have replied.

Yet they have only until March 27 – when Parliament goes into Easter recess – to fix up a meeting to approve the appointment of a successor. Even if the board appoints an acting ombudsman under the 1967 legislation it would still need Parliamentary approval by the committee, I am told.

Rob Behrens also had strong links with the various international organisations – a couple of which have been hit by scandals.

A war crime and a corruption scandal

Josef Ziegele, the European Ombudsman Institute ‘s general secretary, was behind the alleged deportation of two Ukrainian refugee children from Austria to Russia which could be a war crime according to the Kyiv Independent which led to other Ombudsmen, including Rob Behrens resigning from it last April.

The president of the International Ombudsman Institute, Chris Field, who is the Western Australia state Parliamentary ombudsman, is apparently a good friend of Rob Behrens. But at the moment Field is at the centre of corruption hearings in Western Australia over his huge annual travel expenses of $266,000 Australian dollars (£136,840) and for subsidising his organisation through money allocated from Australian taxpayers.

At a visit to Ukraine in 2022 Mr Field heaped praise on Mr Behrens saying “I am deeply grateful to my good friend and colleague Rob Behrens CBE, IOI Vice President Europe, who joined me on this visit. He is a person of utter integrity, searching intellect and profoundly good values. He came to Ukraine. He lives his values” .

He also put a submission to the PACAC saying: ” He is counted as a wise mentor and friend by me and so many of his colleagues around the world. Ombudsman Behrens has not just transformed the office of the PHSO into one of the world’s leading Ombudsman offices, he has made a contribution to the IOI and the institution of the Ombudsman globally of inestimable value. It is of some note that I was accompanied by only one Ombudsman on my visit to Ukraine in December in 2022, namely Ombudsman Behrens. He distinguished his office and his country during this visit.”

The annual report of his Ombudsman’s report for West Australia revealed Field had visited Taiwan, China, Ukraine, Britain, the US, Slovenia, Thailand, Austria, Morocco, France, Russia, Poland and Hungary.  Just prior to his visit to Ukraine, the IOI president met with the Australian Ambassador to Poland Lloyd Brodrick, and the Australian Ambassador to Ukraine Bruce Edwards in Poland. 

Chris Field, Western Australia Ombudsman

During the first tranche of the corruption hearings against him ( they resume mid March) it was revealed that he decided to end rules disclosing gifts he had received on foreign trips by raising the disclosure limit from around £25 to £125. It was revealed that he planned to give the OECD in Paris from Australian taxpayers funds , over $213,000 (about £107,000) for a project concerning, ‘the role of Ombudsman institutions in building a culture of open government for stronger and more resilient communities.’ The first invoice from OECD of half the cash was blocked by the Ombudsman’s chief finance officer.

He also ordered his office to pay for a private limousine to take him from the Paris Hilton to the OECD headquarters because he said taxis were difficult to find in Paris.

It was said he was only in the office for two days out of ten because of all these world trips and he designated other people to take operational decisions.

Behrens stands with Israel

MPs in today’s report praise the Ombudsman for seeking co-operation with international organisations. It also discloses that the Parliamentary Ombudsman is working closely to co-operate with Israel’s Ombudsman.

So closely that Matanyahu Englman, Israel’s Ombudsman requested both Chris Field and Rob Behrens to issue a statement by the International Ombudsman Institute giving unqualified support to Israel to fight HAMAS.

Chris Field obliged saying: “There can be no false moral equivalences in the lawful and correct response of Israel to those who came to slaughter the Jewish people,” in a letter to Israel’s State Comptroller and Ombudsman Matanyahu Englman. “No international body should be allowed to falter in their resolve to eradicate a body that actually pays their members to kill Jews. There can be no peace in the Middle East while terrorism and undemocratic representation of the peoples of Gaza seek to eliminate the Jewish people.”

See the Jerusalem Post article here for the full story.

One-Time
Monthly
Yearly

Make a one-time donation

Make a monthly donation

Make a yearly donation

Choose an amount

£5.00
£10.00
£20.00
£5.00
£15.00
£100.00
£5.00
£15.00
£100.00

Or enter a custom amount

£

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

DonateDonate monthlyDonate yearly

Please donate to Westminster Confidential

£10.00

Whistleblower Dr Chris Day wins right to appeal in his ten year patient safety battle against Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust

Posted on by
Dr Chris Day

Whistleblower Dr Chris Day won the right to appeal today when a a Deputy High Court Judge Andrew Burns of the Employment Appeal Tribunal granted permission to appeal the November 2022 decision of the London South Employment Tribunal on six out of ten grounds at a hearing in London.

My blog on this judgement is here: Tribunal of the Absurd: My Verdict on the Dr Chris Day whistleblower case | Westminster Confidential (davidhencke.com)

The saga which has now being going on for almost ten years began when Dr Day  raised patient safety issues in intensive care unit at Woolwich Hospital in London. The Judge said today this was of the “utmost seriousness” and were linked to two avoidable deaths but their status as reasonable beliefs were contested by the NHS for 4 years using public money.

Deputy High Court judge Andrew Burns

In a series of twists and turns at various tribunals investigating his claims Dr Day has been vilified by the trust not only in court but in a press release sent out by the trust and correspondence with four neighbouring trust chief executives and the head of NHS England, Dr Amanda Pritchard and local MPs.

This specific hearing followed a judgement in favour of the trust by employment judge Anne Martin at a hearing which revealed that David Cocke, a director of communications at the trust, who was due to be a witness but never turned up, destroyed 90,000 emails overnight during the hearing. A huge amount of evidence and correspondence that should have been released to Dr Day was suddenly discovered. The new evidence showed that the trust’s chief executive, Ben Travis, had misled the tribunal when he said that a board meeting which discussed Dr Day’s case did not exist and that he had not informed any other chief executive about the case other than the documents that were eventually disclosed to the court..

The hearing went on for an extra week because of all these disclosures and the British Medical Association, who are representing Dr Day, asked for their costs to be repaid yesterday because of the additional expense at the hearing. The judge agreed that a separate appeal to recover the  BMA costs should also be granted permission to be heard.

Instead of a decision to allow an appeal this hearing was held today to decide whether there was an ” arguable case ” for an appeal.

Dr Chris Day won the right to appeal that some of the findings of the judgement were perverse, that the judgement failed to draw any inferences from the destruction of 90,000 emails and the failure to provide documents that would have helped Dr Day’s case. This in particular followed the disclosure in documents that under oath the chief executive, Ben Travis gave an untrue account about a board meeting and had hidden he had contacted other trust chief executives about Dr Day.

The judge seemed exercised that the trust despite the Care Quality Commission expressing concern about a press release which attacked Dr Day decided to do nothing about it and the judgement appeared to ignore this.

Andrew Allen KC

The judge also allowed the right of appeal for Dr Day about the way he had been treated as an employee and how events had unfolded at the trust.

What was not allowed was the right of Andrew Allen, the BMA’s funded lawyer, to cross examine the trust’s lawyer, Ben Cooper, about remarks he had made about Dr Day during the hearing. some of which he was forced to concede were not accurate. Mr Cooper was rescued By Judge Anne Martin from having to respond to Dr Day’s supplementary statement on this point and was further rescued by the EAT today. Coincidently today Mr Cooper was representing the retail giant Asda in a case next door to today’s hearing.

My Statement on Ben Cooper KC – DrChrisDay

 The Judge also blocked a ground of appeal relating to factual findings being made on whether MPs and the Press has been misled on Dr Day’s protected disclosures. Also blocked was Dr Day’s and his legal team’s clear request for a formal finding on whether deliberate concealment had occurred as part of Dr Day’s protected disclosures. It was made clear to the Judge these points were what the case was about.

Ben Cooper QC

Despite this the decision of a senior judge does call into question the judgement made by Anne Martin who it is now arguable made some poor calls -particularly avoiding the issue of the destruction of emails and withholding documents that should have been disclosed to Dr Day’s lawyers.

The judge also paid Dr Day a compliment saying by raising the dangers for patient safety caused by staff shortages in 2014 he was ” way ahead of his time.” This might suggest that judiciary is becoming increasingly aware about the state of the NHS and its effect on patient safety. Perhaps judges are seeing too many scandals reported in NHS trusts.

One-Time
Monthly
Yearly

Make a one-time donation

Make a monthly donation

Make a yearly donation

Choose an amount

£5.00
£10.00
£20.00
£5.00
£15.00
£100.00
£5.00
£15.00
£100.00

Or enter a custom amount

£

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

DonateDonate monthlyDonate yearly

Please donate to Westminster Confidential

£10.00

London borough of Richmond and the Met Police deny historic child sex abuse after survivor’s predator gets jailed for six years

Posted on by
Keith Hinchliffe

Met Police says it was not a crime for council staff to proposition children for sex in 1984

Keith Hinchliffe, the child sex abuse survivor, who got his predator sentenced to six years in jail 40 years after he abused him for three years , is facing an uphill battle with the Met Police and the London borough of Richmond to get compensation or even recognition there was a problem.

The Met Police are describing his allegation that he was propositioned for sex by a member of staff at Grafton Close Children’s home as ” not a crime” and the council have employed lawyers and insurers to say it did not fail in its duty of care to look after him.

Keith’s abuser, Phillip Saunders, had open access to the children’s home where he took him out to sexually abuse him and the member of staff propositioned him when she invited him to her flat in return for saying she would help him leave the home early.

Documents show the Met Police has reviewed the allegations he made in 1984 which resulted in ” no further action” but came to the same conclusion again. The documents show that at first Richmond Council tried to say there was no evidence that he was at the home and then because he was not certain whether her name was Christine or Linda they could not trace anybody.

But the most damning finding was that the Met concluded that no crime existed in the first place.

The report said: “You stated ..that you had been propositioned but that the suspect had not touched you or physically sexually abused you. You stated that it was verbal comments only. I agree that crimes of such nature are fully within the public interest, however, there has to have been a crime committed for that interest to exist.”

Detective Sergeant Alex Woolley of the Met Police Child Sex Abuse Investigations Team, wrote to him saying: ”

“In relation to what happened you at Grafton Close, this report has been closed and classified as a “no crime”.
“Clearly the conduct of the member of staff is entirely unacceptable. However, we have to apply the law as it was at the time that the incidents happened. This happened before the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and so we have to consider what legislation is available to us in the 1980s.”
Keith Hinchliffe was very dissatisfied by the decision and has appealed to the London Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime (MOPAC) for a review of the case at the end of October when Saunders was convicted. The office has accepted his complaint but warned him it could take 8 months to get a reply because of a backlog of complaints against the Met.

Richmond’s response has been even more negative. First they questioned whether he had ever been at Grafton and said there were no records showing he was there. Then by pursuing the issue with his local MP and a Freedom of Information request the South London Legal Partnership found a log confirming he had been admitted to Grafton Close and discharged six weeks later. But it said all the social work records at that time had been destroyed. It refused to release any documents on the Fernbridge investigation by the Met into child sexual abuse at Grafton Close home in 2015 which the authority did confirm it had co-operated with the police on the grounds that they were too sensitive because they contained details of third parties involved.

When he persisted in pursuing Richmond over this the council turned the case over to lawyers in Nottingham, Browne Jacobson, an Anglo-Irish firm, who cover business, government and health issues.

The firm in a letter this month set out to demolish Keith’s claims of negligence or breach of duty of care at Grafton Close. It cited case law to exonerate social workers who may be involved in his case and also said he had to meet stringent tests to bring any claim that the staff failed to protect him. One of them included he couldn’t produce documents to show the council’s policies at the time – since the council has destroyed all the records.

You can’t bring a negligence case if there was no duty of care -Richmond Council’s lawyers

The lawyers also said he was out of time to bring a case and they would challenge this in court. They were also sceptical of whether the conviction of Saunders would help. The lawyers wrote to him saying ” a claim in negligence cannot succeed if there is no duty of care in the first place”.

It goes on to say the council have neither admitted or denied the conviction of Mr Saunders but would need a certification of conviction or indictment.

The firm warned him they had agreed to represent Richmond if he brought a case and that he could incur substantial costs and he should take independent legal advice.

Since publication of the first blog I have been contacted by one other resident at Grafton Close suggesting there was a woman member of staff at Grafton Close who did sleep with at least one of the boys there. What Keith is exposing is a cess pit of behaviour which the Met and Richmond Council want to forget.

I don’t think Keith is going to give up on this so I expect there will be further developments. Watch this space.

One-Time
Monthly
Yearly

Make a one-time donation

Make a monthly donation

Make a yearly donation

Choose an amount

£5.00
£10.00
£20.00
£5.00
£15.00
£100.00
£5.00
£15.00
£100.00

Or enter a custom amount

£

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

DonateDonate monthlyDonate yearly

Please donate to Westminster Confidential

£10.00

Exclusive: Child sex abuse survivor gets his predator jailed 40 years after he committed multiple sex acts against him in London and Buckinghamshire

Posted on by

Keith Hinchliffe. He contacted me and gave me permission to use his name to encourage other survivors to come forward and get justice in the courts and compensation.

Judge described him as ” an immensely impressive witness, honest, reasonable and composed under pressure”

A child sex abuse survivor has got justice 40 years after he was groomed and sexually assaulted by a paedophile who went on to commit other offences against boys in Holland and a girl in Kent.

Philip Saunders, 67, was sentenced to six years in jail, with the judge saying only a rule that sentences had to reflect the law in the 1980s stopped him from giving him an even longer sentence.

Keith Hinchliffe, now 54, was abused at Saunders home, in his car, in his office at night, at Wembley Stadium and his predator was given open access to Grafton Close children’s home in the London borough of Richmond to take him out to abuse him when he was put in care.. The abuse continued for three years starting when he was 12 until he turned 16. Saunders was 27 at the time.

His case raises questions again about the role of Richmond Council under Liberal Democrat control and the Met Police in the 1980s who took no effective action to stop paedophiles abusing children in the borough. Grafton Close is the same home where a Roman Catholic priest, Tony McSweeney, was jailed for three years for indecent assault after escaping justice for 35 years following a fresh Met Police investigation in 2015. Like Saunders, McSweeney was able to take boys out of the home with the help of John Stingemore, then the deputy manager of the home, who was already a convicted paedophile. Stingemore died before the case got to court. See my blog on this here.

Richmond on Thames Council sign

Keith reported the incidents to the Met police when he was at Grafton Close care home in 1984 and allegations that he had been propositioned for sex as a 15 year old by a woman staff worker at the home. The Met interviewed him and decided to take no further action.

Keith plucked up courage in 2019 to report the abuse again after seeing the BBC investigation into paedophile Jimmy Saville and went to the NSPCC who reported it to Thames Valley Police.

Unlike the Met, Thames Valley Police took his claims seriously and the case went to Reading Crown Court where Saunders tried to deny everything but he was convicted last October and sentenced in December.

The judge, recorder John Ryder, in his sentencing remarks in court, told the whole grisly story. He revealed that Saunders, after abusing Keith, went over to the Hague and sexually abused two boys in his care and was sentenced to two years and six months in jail. In 2005 in Maidstone he was jailed for four years for three indecent acts with a young girl, the daughter of his current wife.

Saunders got access to Keith and his family because he was his sister’s boyfriend for about a year. The judge described how he got Keith to stay overnight at his home in Langley and then asked him to sleep in his bed because he claimed the spare bed was broken. The abuse began overnight and then he was given expensive gifts. This included a microcomputer – rare in 1982 – a Raleigh bike and a Michael Jackson DVD, Thriller. He also exploited the boy’s passion for fast cars taking him to test drives and shows.

” unusually expensive gifts were to groom him for sex abuse”

As the judge said: “giving unusually expensive gifts coveted by an adolescent boy and exploitation of his interests were a means of grooming him to sex abuse.”

He also took pictures of him with an Instamatic camera naked or dressed up at his home, in his car, at work and at Wembley Stadium where he took him to see an American football match.

Keith told the Judge if he didn’t comply Saunders , who is six foot four inches tall, became violent.

The judge says he said: “If I didn’t do things, he would let me know. Arm behind back- pain” .”Rebuffed once and pinned to floor and decanter of scotch all over my face as punishment and made to pleasure him again.”

Other times he was plied with drink, forced to watch pornography and forced to perform oral sex on him.
These events made Keith feel both fear and shame and he started skipping school. The judge summed up his evidence as finding “relationships hard. No friends. Initial abuse hard, aftermath is life changing. Did not finish education. Rebelled. Hated the world and everything around me. Navigated life without education guidance and to relive events in court and answer challenges again and again – had almost broken him.” His changed behaviour led him to be put into care by Richmond council.

He was too ashamed to tell his family and feared his father, an ex merchant navy man, would take it out on him if he knew. He has now told his mother, his present wife and has children of his own and has a job as a furniture maker. But he told the police he now regretted never taking exams at school and getting a good job because of the constant abuse from Saunders.

The judge said:

“I found Keith Hinchliffe an immensely impressive witness, honest, reasonable and composed under
pressure about [a] sensitive and damaging experience. Impressive man.” He described him as an ” insightful and measured in expression”. “Trauma and fear and shame shaped his personality and altered [his] outlook on the world.”

The judge was highly critical of Saunders for trying to deny the whole story and showing no remorse for what he had done.

” You continue to deny any sexual activity at all with him.{You] told PSR author only interested in adult female relationships. That assertion is completely contradicted by the facts in the Holland conviction. I have no doubt on the basis of evidence I heard from KH at trial – he suffered substantial and serious psychological harm as result of your actions. {You] abused a position of trust in relation to him.”

The police interview with Keith revealed he partly came forward because he had seen in the media that perpetrators of historic child sexual abuse were now being caught and jailed.

Despite securing a conviction against Saunders he is now having to fight the Met and Richmond Council to get redress. They won’t admit they did anything wrong in the 1980s or had a duty of care towards him. In the second part of this grisly story I will be revealing their responses to him.

One-Time
Monthly
Yearly

Make a one-time donation

Make a monthly donation

Make a yearly donation

Choose an amount

£5.00
£10.00
£20.00
£5.00
£15.00
£100.00
£5.00
£15.00
£100.00

Or enter a custom amount

£

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

DonateDonate monthlyDonate yearly

pl;ease donate to Westminster Confidential

£10.00

Why does the DWP want the personal documents of the six complainants over 50swomen pensions when it has decided to refuse to pay them?

Posted on by

Rather late in the day the Department for Work and Pensions has requested personal documents from the six ” test case” complainants representing 3.5 million 50s born pensioners seeking compensation for maladministration.

This is the latest twist in the long running saga of the 50swomen fight for compensation which has taken seven years without a penny being paid out.

Having been contacted by some of the six women who are puzzled why the DWP should want such information and are not getting any adequate explanation from the DWP or the Ombudsman’s office. The request has come from the Parliamentary Ombudsman who is seeking their permission to hand over files that contain the personal information. The six are not supposed to confer with each other.

Rob Behrens Parliamentary Ombudsman

They have good reason to be puzzled. For the confidential submission to the Ombudsman from the DWP says the ministry has already decided to give them nothing. A section of their long submission addresses the problem that if it decided they should have some money why they don’t qualify for any financial redress. It goes through each case and tries to demolish the grounds under the partial maladministration found by the Ombudsman for the women to get anything. The documents it is seeking only apply to the partial maladministration found by the Ombudsman covering some 28 months Rob Behrens decided the ministry should have informed the women. So the Ombudsman will not pass to the DWP the full documentation from those who wanted the maladministration to cover the whole period after the 1995 Pensions Act was passed.

The confidential submission from the DWP does not accept that any of the six complainants are entitled to compensation. It rejects blanket payments to all saying ” we struggle to see how a uniform approach to the level of compensation has any validity when the individual situation of the complainants are all very different.”

It goes on to demolish claims of ill health, lack of money and financial loss are anything to do with the time the complainant received notice of the delay in their pension, blaming other factors for their distress.

It blames three of the complainants for not taking enough action to sort out their finances. It accuses two of them who said they would have kept working if they had known about the delay earlier, of failing to find jobs once they knew.

“It is very difficult to conclude that these complainants missed an opportunity to improve their financial situation because they did not take the action they claim they would have taken.”

It also rejects claims of ill health were caused by the delay in finding out that the pension age was going to rise.

“Four complainants described physical symptoms they attributed to their financial position. Several of the complainants were in difficult financial positions regardless of their not knowing about the increase to State Pension age.”

The final conclusion is: ”it is clear that the complainants simply needed to undertake more research in preparation for their retirement, especially considering that four of the sample group took early retirement and have not provided any evidence that they had conducted any research or retirement planning prior to making their decisions(Retirement years: 2010, 2006, 2005 & 2009). If they had requested a forecast and
planned, they would have had plenty of time to react instead of retiring.”

Table in DWP submission suggests Ombudsman was asking for very little compensation anyway

The report also includes a table which seems to suggest – before the Ombudsman made his provisional decision to make no awards for compensation but to leave it to Parliament- that the levels of compensation would be low- a maximum if £450 and in some cases nothing.

Ombudsman’s provisional compensation recommendations according to the DWP.

As for personal details the DWP submission already contains an annexe with a lot of personal details of the six complainants which makes it all the more confusing why it should want more. I am not publishing the details to protect their privacy.

It strikes me that people need to question more why this extra information is needed when the department has so much already.

It must be coincidence that this request has come at the same time as Mel Stride, the works and pensions secretary, is facing litigation from CEDAWinLAW, a campaigning group for women, calling for mediation with the DWP to end this long saga.

It is time the Parliamentary Ombudsman and the DWP were more open about their agenda rather than hiding behind obfuscation and secrecy. I seem to be the only person probing what is going on.

One-Time
Monthly
Yearly

Make a one-time donation

Make a monthly donation

Make a yearly donation

Choose an amount

£5.00
£10.00
£20.00
£5.00
£15.00
£100.00
£5.00
£15.00
£100.00

Or enter a custom amount

£

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

DonateDonate monthlyDonate yearly

Please donate to Westminster Confidential

£10.00

The double standards on whistleblowing by Epsom and St Helier University NHS Trust

Posted on by
Epsom Hospital

UPDATED: Since the publication of this blog the communications team of the St George’s, Epsom and St Helier Hospital Group have responded. It says:

It is not correct to say Ms Usha Prasad was dismissed for raising patient safety concerns. A disciplinary panel concluded that she should be dismissed for competency grounds, concerns around her practice/conduct and because relationships with key colleagues had broken down. This decision was upheld on appeal.

I shall be publishing a blog shortly on how this decision came about and how it was plainly unjust and directly aimed at ruining her career as a doctor.

An extraordinary missive has come to light from the leaders of the Epsom and St Helier University Trust ( now part of the St George’s, Epsom and St Helier Hospital Group) on whistleblowing.

The letter was sent to all staff to encourage them – that they will be safe if they disclose any unsafe practice or patient concern at the two hospitals. Indeed it says they shouldn’t hesitate to do so.

Ostensibly this followed the scandalous murders of babies at the Countess of Chester hospital which led to nurse Lucy Letby being sent to prison. The management of that hospital behaved appallingly threatening any doctor who raised the issue to cover it up and there will now be an independent inquiry.

What the letter doesn’t tell you about is the real behaviour of the top managers of that trust - its authors, chair Gillian Norton and chief executive , Jacqueline Totterdell – if anyone dares to report if something is wrong.

Dr Usha Prasad and the previous chief executive, Daniel Elkenes in better times

For this letter came out just six days after the trust were planning to land their biggest whistleblower, former consultant cardiologist, Usha Prasad, with a £180,000 costs bill for daring to raise the case of an ” avoidable death” of a heart patient at the trust and claims of racial and sexist discrimination. See hearing here.

Usha Prasad, who was dismissed by the trust, has had years of fighting the top management through employment tribunal hearings. The trust has spent a small fortune of taxpayer’s money employing battalions of lawyers to prove her wrong. The two top officials have been deaf and blind to any appeal on her behalf for reinstatement, including a letter from the chair of the British Medical Association.

Jaqueline Totterdell – chief executive

Worse than that the lawyers led by Jessica Blackburn from Capsticks and Nadia Motraghi KC, from Old Street Chambers, have continually derided her attempts to defend herself. Jessica Blackburn described her whistleblowing claim as ” unmeritorious” in correspondence and Nadia Motraghi, described her case having ” no prospect of success” during the latest cost hearing which led the judge to order her to pay £20,000 in her absence. She also painted a picture of her making a fortune as locum -based on no recent evidence- and appeared to be an expert on London house prices to justify her paying the bill.

Jessica Blackburn rushed to send her the bill only for another judge to stay the payment as Usha Prasad, a brave fighter, is to appeal the original judgement against her later this year. The trust are still charging interest at a daily rate while she appeals.

So if I were an employees of the trust I would be beware of the silken and siren tones of the letter below and think very carefully before reporting anything to the top management. Think instead of the fate of Usha Prasad.

This is a serious shame because the sentiments in the letter are fine but the reality is rather different. I am afraid I think this is more a public relations exercise than really the top management being committed to real change. I fear reputational damage always outweighs concerns about patient safety.

Read the text of the letter below:

Dear colleagues

The news of Lucy Letby’s crimes has shocked us all. These acts were a profound betrayal of patient trust, and we hold in our thoughts all those who have been affected.

We welcome the independent inquiry that will take place to identify every lesson that can be learned and to do all possible to prevent anything like it happening again.

While dreadful events like this are thankfully extremely rare, this is a stark reminder of the vital importance of us all feeling safe and confident to speak up, raise concerns, or whistleblow if we are worried about something.

We are all crucial in making sure our services run safely for our patients. It’s so important that every one of you – whatever your role – feels safe and confident to raise concerns if you have any worries. We want you to know that we will always take these seriously and you will not get into trouble for speaking up. If you feel you’re being treated differently for doing so, let us know and we will act as necessary. If you have something to say, please don’t hesitate.

Our responsibility doesn’t end with speaking up; it extends to listening to concerns and addressing them. Really listening and responding in the right way to the concerns of patients, families and colleagues should be an integral part of how we work and support each other. We know that sometimes when you raise concerns things don’t happen quickly enough, and we are introducing new measures to improve this.

In the meantime, how we respond to incidents will be strengthened across the NHS with the launch of the new Patient Safety Incident Response Framework (PSIRF) from September. It will increase opportunities to learn and improve, and for closer working with those involved.

We have a Raising concerns at work policy with more detail on the process. In summary, if you ever have concerns there are several ways you can report these, including through your manager or lead director, our Freedom to Speak Up Guardians, or, if you feel it cannot be resolved internally, organisations external to the Trust.

And of course, you can speak directly to us, or any member of our executive team or Board – we are here to listen and act as necessary on what you say.

We are sure that many of you will have found these recent events upsetting, and if you would like to talk to someone please do reach out to your line manager or to our staff support service – email esth.staffcounselling@nhs.net  or call (number deleted)

Thank you for everything you do every day to keep our patients and families cared for and safe.

With best wishes,

Gillian Norton, Chairman

Jacqueline Totterdell, Group Chief Executive

One-Time
Monthly
Yearly

Make a one-time donation

Make a monthly donation

Make a yearly donation

Choose an amount

£5.00
£10.00
£20.00
£5.00
£15.00
£100.00
£5.00
£15.00
£100.00

Or enter a custom amount

£

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

DonateDonate monthlyDonate yearly

Please donate to Westminster Confidential

£10.00

Exclusive: Legal papers lodged at the High Court to start proceedings against Mel Stride over 50swomen pensions

Posted on by
Royal Courts of Justice

UPDATE: Papers have now been served on Mel Stride, Secretary of State for work and pensions, and the DWP for acting unreasonably in refusing to agree to mediation over the issue of the six year delay to 1950s women’s pensions. The ministry will now have 21 days to file a response and then the case will have to go to court.

The Government’s attitude in not recognising there is a problem chimes well with their handling of the Post Office postmaster’s scandal and in delaying compensation for people hit by the contaminated blood scandal. Their attitude to my mind suggests there is a Whitehall playbook to avoid paying people any compensation for as long as possible, probably drawn up by Government lawyers, in the hope that many people will be dead before the inevitable pay out is made.

Since the publication of this blog the DWP has confirmed it is now involved in litigation with CEDAWinLAW but does not wish to comment about it.

But interestingly Rob Behrens, the Parliamentary Ombudsman, has pulled back from his threat to pause his investigation ( see below). He now says he will review the position only if the courts give permission to CEDAWinLAW to bring a judicial review. This means the confidential consultation will continue until January 19 and the report is still scheduled to be published on March 23.

The legal battle against Mel Stride, the work and pension secretary, over his refusal to consider mediation in the long running dispute over50s women pensions has begun.

Papers were lodged at the High Court yesterday by lawyers representing the campaigning group .CEDAWinLAW on behalf of 3.5 million people who faced a six year delay to receiving their pension.

In a statement the organisation said:

“CEDAWinLAW earlier instructed Professor John Cooper KC, ‘One of the Top 10 influential lawyers in the UK’, 25bedfordrow.com and David Greene, Senior Partner, edwincoe.com to represent ALL 1950’s Women in a judicial review against the Secretary of State for Work & Pensions in relation to the DWP’s refusal to mediate following from the Judge’s Report which sets out in depth the way in which those affected have enforceable rights which have been breached.

We are delighted to announce today that our legal team has issued at the court an Application for a Judicial Review in the matter which, in turn, is now being served on the Respondent.

Included as part of the lodged Application & Bundles, an expert witness statement authored by The Hon Dr Jocelynne Scutt AO, the former Australian judge, who produced a report on the discrimination faced by 50s women.

Please kindly donate to meet our legal team costs and @crowdjustice platform fees. The link is :https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/group-class-action/ “

Mel Stride, Work and Pensions Secretary

The lodging of the papers will mean the Department for Work and Pensions will have to lodge a response to the new judicial review breaking their silence over the matter and their refusal to contemplate any mediation over the matter.

What the position of the Parliamentary Ombudsman, Robert Behrens, to this new development is not entirely clear. He is handling a separate case involving maladministration and is currently consulting in confidence over 500 people and the six complainants on his final report until January 19. His plan was to publish it on March 23 just a few days before his retirement. His main findings and the Department’s response to him were published on this blog here and here.

During a hearing with the Commons Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee in November Mr Behrens in a reply to Ronnie Cowan, the Scottish National Party MP for Inverclyde, said:

“It is not in our hands, Mr Cowan, to be able to be definitive about what the end date is going to be. If there is further litigation, then that will delay the process even further. That is out of our
hands.”

It now is and his reaction and the DWP’s reaction to this new development is awaited.

One-Time
Monthly
Yearly

Make a one-time donation

Make a monthly donation

Make a yearly donation

Choose an amount

£5.00
£10.00
£20.00
£5.00
£15.00
£100.00
£5.00
£15.00
£100.00

Or enter a custom amount

£

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

DonateDonate monthlyDonate yearly

please donate to Westminster Confidential

£10.00

How a nurse whistleblower fell foul of NHS managers after the shock of finding a dead patient in a hospital ward

Posted on by
Francisca Holmes

Former Ward 22 manager not called as a witness says trust is lying over events that led to patient’s death

Francisca Holmes, a 61 year old staff nurse, had worked happily at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Woolwich since 2019. She is a black person of African ethnicity.

But during the Covid pandemic she was shocked to go into Ward 23 on 17 May 2020 after a frail elderly patient, who had not been admitted with Covid, but with a lower respiratory condition, was found to have died and nobody had noticed.

As I reported earlier, after the document was released by the judge hearing her tribunal case, the investigation into her death has been sparse. Just one page recording a ” patient incident” for a woman who died alone in a ward full of Covid patients after vomiting, with her mask resting on a pillow and a nebuliser with no oxygen.

Ms Holmes had a five day tribunal hearing this week under judge Eoin Fowell claiming detriment over whistleblowing, constructive dismissal, and age and race discrimination. All this was challenged by the Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust who employed a junior barrister, Camille Ibbotson, from the law firm, Old Square Chambers at great expense to press their case.

Her discovery of the body of the patient was reported to staff nurse Mr. Rey Malabuyoc. According to her witness statement she blames a Filipino nurse ,Ms Chenee Coronado, who was looking after her, for negligence that lead to her death. She has never been asked for a statement about what happened by the trust.

The death of the patient is described more fully in her witness statement:”

“According to Biftu Ali {the day nurse on duty) , the patient had been sitting out in the chair eating yoghurt when she aspirated and peri-arrested.  A crash call was put out and patient was seen by the team.  She added that patient was in bed, settled and being nebulised.

“After handover, my colleague  went into the bay but came straight back out to call me.  The known COPD patient was found lifeless with a nasopharyngeal tube in her right nostril.  She had a face mask on and nebulised on air via an air driven machine.  There was no sight of a nasal cannula, meaning she was not getting the required oxygen.  It is note worthy that a 40% (red) venture mask laid on top of her pillow while the flow metre was on at 60%. The patient had a nasopharyngeal tube in her right nostril.”

Rodney Katandika Pic credit: Linked In

The trust’s argument is the hospital was in the middle of the Covid pandemic and nurses could not devote the time needed to look after every patient because of staff shortages. Mr Rodney Katandika, the matron, on the ward, who first investigated the situation, said in evidence to the tribunal initially there was “nothing untoward in her death”. He also resolutely denied any age and race discrimination on his part.

After the event her witness statement says the trust ” appointed Lucie Kabatesi, Matron on and sent her a list of my complaints in a letter purporting to set out my grievances. The letter specifically omitted any reference to the patient death incident and my whistleblowing complaint which I had raised. I was not advised of any other procedure to raise my concerns and it appeared that the respondent was covering up the circumstances of the patient death and my allegations.”

She says she repeated her allegations when she met Ms Kabatesi on 27 April 2021. Ms Kabatsi told the tribunal this was the first time she had raised this with her and it was added to her investigation.

Francisca Holmes claims that since reporting the death she has been subject to detriments and ” set up to fail ” including being put on inconvenient shifts, left in charge of the ward without a matron, passed over for courses, had a pay cut just after a pay rise, and being accused by Mr Katandika of leaving without handing over her patients to the next staff shift putting patient safety at risk contrary to the nurses’ code of conduct.

She seems to have had a bad relationship with Jean Firaza, a Filipino manager, describing in her statement an incident where during a handover. In her statement she says: “She was very angry, arms akimbo and leaning back and forwards. There was a discussion about the treatment we were giving to a patient.”

Jean Firaza was not called as a witness by the trust, though she attended the hearing every day.

The investigation by Ms Kabatesi was scheduled to be completed in four weeks but took six months. She was described as an expert investigator but like Mr Katandika, and Ms Ann Marie Coiley, director of nursing, had no experience of investigating whistleblowing cases. I find this strange they were chosen since the same hospital must have postgrad experience of investigating whistleblowing since it is still fighting Dr Chris Day for over ten years over his whistleblowing claims over the avoidable deaths in the intensive care unit.

Ms Holmes was never informed of the progress of the investigation and eventually frustrated resigned.

Ms Ann Marie Coiley blamed Covid problems for the failure to sort out Ms Holmes’s request for flexible working and said she had bought a ” shopping list of complaints” against the trust.

Camille Ibbotson

In her closing submission Camille Ibbotson for the trust said all her claims of unfair treatment and age and race discrimination were ” wholly unfounded.” She said all the trust witnesses who were called had provided credible evidence while she had been ” evasive” when questioned by her. She downplayed the death of the patient describing it as ” a patient incident” which seemed to me to be a rather callous dismissal when you heard the facts about the death.

Winston Brown, Ms Holmes’ solicitor, in summing up her case placed great emphasis on the fact that she been the victim of constructive dismissal by being kept in the dark about the investigation into her grievances and the trust hiding behind Covid to avoid detailed questioning about how she was treated.

He pointed out despite Covid the trust did not suspend its policy of treating staff with dignity and compassion because of the Covid crisis. As a result he thought it was in breach of the code and therefore she should be compensated. He also raised why the tribunal had not heard from Thurdy Campbell, one of the managers involved

Thurdy Campbell: former manager of Ward 22

After the publication of my blog over the trust’s failed attempt to ban me from seeing Ms Holmes’ witness statement and the ” investigation” into the patient’s death I was contacted on Linked In by Thurdy Campbell myself. She blames the death of the patient on an unplanned reconfiguration of wards 22 and wards 23 just two days before the patient died

She told me: ” I was the manager of Ward 22 at the Lewisham  and Greenwich NHS Trust who reported patient safety concerns  (via clinical incident) and sent email to senior managers  regarding  the unplanned reconfiguration process of 15 May 2020 that led to that incident (I was blindsided of the  patient’s death until Francisca Holmes raised the incident with me sometime in 2021).

” I supported FH as the ward manager during her complaint  but was dismissed from office during the investigation procedures conducted at the Trust . I was subjected to unlawful disciplinary sanctioning after reporting. “

She goes on: “I have sent Fran the info on this incident this morning . They are lying. I was slapped with a conduct letter by the DDNG (Divisional Director of Nursing Governance) for raising concerns about this incident. It has nothing to do with staff shortage. There should be a shift log book detailing activities of that day. Mr Brown should request a copy of that booklet..”

This seems to throw new light on events that were never told to the tribunal. The judgement will be given Monday afternoon.

One-Time
Monthly
Yearly

Make a one-time donation

Make a monthly donation

Make a yearly donation

Choose an amount

£5.00
£10.00
£20.00
£5.00
£15.00
£100.00
£5.00
£15.00
£100.00

Or enter a custom amount

£

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

DonateDonate monthlyDonate yearly

please donate to Westminster Confidential

£10.00

Death in Ward 23: Whistleblower nurse raises patient safety issues in the same hospital where Dr Chris Day is fighting avoidable deaths

Posted on by
Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Woolwich pic credit: Lewisham and Greenwich NHS trust

Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Health Trust is facing a second whistle blowing case at an employment tribunal over patient safety six years after Dr Chris Day, a junior doctor, in 2014 brought a still on going case on two ” avoidable deaths” in their intensive care unit.

Francisca Holmes, a 61 year old nurse who has since resigned from Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Woolwich has claimed detriment after reporting an elderly frail patient was found to have died in her ward without the staff realising this had happened. She is also claiming age and racial discrimination.

She is being represented by her local solicitor Winston Brown, from Brown and Company. The trust is being represented by solicitors Capsticks and Camille Ibbotson, a junior counsel from Old Square Chambers.

Before the hearing even started Francisca contacted me saying she have been told that a journalist could not report the case because “all NHS cases” are confidential. When I pointed out this was nonsense her solicitor told her I could be given a link to attend the remote hearing.

Camille Ibbotson, junior barrister at Old Square Chambers

Then during the hearing I requested via the chat box to see a copy of her witness statement and the report into the investigation of the death. This was vigorously opposed by Camille Ibbotson, on behalf of the trust. She claimed that under the remote practice rules I had to make a formal application for the documents explaining why I wanted them and insisting that the report contained sensitive information and the witness statement contained allegations about people I should not see.

But the salaried employment judge Eion Fowell decided that my chatbox application was equivalent to a formal request, pointing out that in a physical tribunal hearing a journalist could raise the matter directly with a judge. I had also explained that I wanted the document so I could understand the case.

After an over night discussion the judge ruled in my favour on the grounds of ” open justice” rejecting the trust’s arguments. He said the trust was ” a large professional organisation” that could have applied before the hearing to keep some of the documents in the tribunal legal bundle private but had failed to do so.

Then it was revealed that the ” investigation” into the patient death is just a one page ” incident report”. The judge allowed the report to be flashed on the screen so I could take notes. It shows that an elderly frail lady was admitted with ” lower respiratory problems” and needed, at times, a nebuliser and oxygen to stay alive.

Evidently she was found to have died because this happened during the Covid pandemic on 17 May 2020 and the trust say ward was short staffed and unable to give her the continual care they would normally do. She was found dead after vomiting with her mask on her pillow and there was no oxygen in the nebuliser.

There seemed to be no suggestion that she had Covid herself but she was in a ward with Covid patients.

I will be reporting in full when the evidence given in the tribunal hearing is finished. But I thought this tussle over getting the documents should be reported as the judge’s ruling against the trust is important. Particularly as these arguments by the trust could be repeated elsewhere by Old Square Chambers.

One-Time
Monthly
Yearly

Make a one-time donation

Make a monthly donation

Make a yearly donation

Choose an amount

£5.00
£10.00
£20.00
£5.00
£15.00
£100.00
£5.00
£15.00
£100.00

Or enter a custom amount

£

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

DonateDonate monthlyDonate yearly

Please donate to Westminster Confidential

£10.00