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

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

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

Exclusive: DWP paper says paying any maladministration compensation to 3.5 million 50s women is ” a major fraud risk”

Entire DWP submission to Ombudsman on women’s right to pension compensation leaked to this blog

All 3.5 million 50s born women including the six “test case” complainants should get no compensation because there has been no maladministration and no evidence of financial loss, the DWP has told Rob Behrens, the Parliamentary Ombudsman. Even if there were maladministration the submission says his report does not show “there was injustice as a consequence of that maladministration.”

Their 118 paragraph submission rejects his entire draft report and his modest proposal of £1000 compensation for the six test cases, which the department says is, anyway, too high.

The coruscating response to the Ombudsman in a document marked ” official sensitive” is highly critical of his findings, the campaign to get compensation by WASPI, and makes the extraordinary suggestion that many of the claims by women could turn out to be fraudulent.

The attitude of the officials to the claim explains the real reason why Mel Stride, the Work and Pensions Secretary, is against mediation as he is obviously being advised that the ministry has no case to answer and why the Ombudsman, who must be embarrassed by the language in the submission, has turned to Parliament as a last resort.

The findings must be a major blow to Angela Madden, the organiser for WASPI, who only last year claimed at the Labour Party Conference that the women would get £10,000 to £20,000 compensation from the ministry.

Much of the submission is devoted to the Ombudsman’s proposal that all the women who have similar circumstances must get similar compensation and fund set up to deal with the wider question of compensation for financial loss. This means that the department would have to examine each case in detail which , according to the paper , would mean employing 5,500 extra staff, and take away people from other work like paying people’s pensions on their retirement and awarding pension credit.

The submission says: “DWP would not have information on all 1950s-born women and we would have to source their information – for example, through HMRC. We would also need bank details in order to make an automated payment and these would be obtained through outreach and/or some way for citizens to provide their details. Such a scenario would take significant setting-up and would have wide ranging impacts on DWP’s other critical business, with likely costs of the digital aspects.” It says this would take 18 months to set up.

It is the fraud claim over financial losses that is most extraordinary.

The submission says: “We are concerned that the Ombudsman’s proposed recommendations would generate a major fraud risk and be hugely and disproportionately burdensome to implement.”

“… we expect that the existence of a scheme would result in many claimants endeavouring to provide such evidence. The Department would then have to try out many extensive and expensive investigations to decide whether the evidence was sufficient to prove financial loss. We expect that claimants will be
encouraged to make claims for financial loss and that template letters will be circulated to support such claims. The cost of living crisis may also drive increased volumes of claims.

“This seems to be an entirely unnecessary expense for the taxpayer given that the Ombudsman has found no sufficient evidence on the 6 sample cases, we found no sufficient evidence on the 10,000 cases, and we cannot see how sufficient evidence could be available.”

The submission does not even accept that that there was anything wrong with the ministry’s communication to 50swomen. The Ombudsman makes another modest proposal that officials report to him and the chairs of the work and pensions and public administration select committtees, Stephen Timms and William Wragg on what they have done six months after his report is published.

“”You have recommended that within 6 months of your final report we explain to you and the chairs of the WPSC and PACAC what we have done since these events happened or what we plan to do.

….”we do not agree to report to you and the chairs of the 2 committees within 6 months of your final report being published. Also, your findings relate to historic events. We are not clear on the benefit of
considering these events with the advantage of hindsight.”

I am not surprised this confidential submission was labelled ” sensitive”. It shows up the arrogant way officials behave towards 3.5 million elderly women, their disdain for remarkably modest proposals from the Ombudsman, dislike of organisations like Waspi for organising ” template letters” and a level of complacency they have in their administration of this vexed and prolonged process of raising the pension age. Their official attitude is little better than Boris Johnson’s quip during the Covid pandemic “let the elderly die”.

I have not bothered to either inform or contact the Ombudsman’s Office or the DWP on this leaked report as the Ombudsman is bound by law from commenting during an investigation and the DWP never comment on leaked documents.

Please donate to Westminster Confidential so I can continue exposing what is really going on in government.

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: Parliamentary Ombudsman dodges recommending any maladministration compensation for 3.5 million 50s women

Rob Behrens, Parliamentary Ombudsman Pic Credit: PHSO website

Ombudsman capitulates to DWP intransigence NOT to pay a penny and leaves it to MPs to decide

In what must be the most extraordinary provisional decision by any Parliamentary Ombudsman Rob Behrens has decided NOT to make any recommendations for compensation for maladministration he found affecting 3.5 million 50s born women who had to wait an extra six years for their pensions.

Some details of his confidential letter sent out to Waspi, MPs, the test case complainants and 500 other pensioners have leaked out and show basically the Ombudsman has , in my words.” kopped out ” of his job to compensate people wronged by public bodies. This is after spending six years – with various breaks – investigating the issue.

The letter reveals that the Department for Work and Pensions has put enormous pressure on the Ombudsman not to award anything by telling him before he has completed his final report they have no intention of paying it.

These are the key paragraphs:

The official Ombudsman website says the aim is to publish this as a final report in March.

So what are the repercussions if this goes ahead? It obviously means it would go to Parliament which would have to have a debate and a vote on various levels of compensation. But the Parliamentary agenda is largely in the hands of the government and government whips. The government still has a large majority and Rishi Sunak, the PM, has shown little, if any, interest in this issue. All the government has to do is put down a motion saying the DWP doesn’t want to pay any of the women and whip Tory MPs to vote for it.

There might be a small rebellion by Tories but not enough to defeat it. It is by no means certain that Labour would support it, despite the former shadow chancellor, John McDonnell promising £58 billion to settle this issue. Labour seeing itself in power later next year would not necessarily be keen on paying a multi billion package to the women when faced with a tight spending constraints.

The other extraordinary result of such a provisional decision is that this is a bitter blow to Waspi, who went down the Parliamentary Ombudsman route. The have raised huge sums of money from these women – all it turns out for nothing. They are still running a crowd funder – supposedly for a judicial review into the Ombudsman’s decision. They capitulated at the court door- going for the Ombudsman to rewrite his findings. Well he has now, and recommends they get nothing. Should they continue to raise money now it could be seen as fleecing their supporters as they now have nowhere to go.

The only bright light in this terrible situation is that CEDAWinLAW has now raised all the £15,000 it needs for lawyers to go ahead to work out a strategy to bring a Group Class action against the DWP. Since it looks like the only thing that could make the DWP listen is a court decision, this is the only avenue left.

But there is something worse in the Ombudsman’s provisional decision. Should it go to a vote in Parliament and Parliament votes to give them nothing, that is the end of the matter. Parliament is supreme and even the courts have to bow to Parliament. In other words, the Ombudsman’s decision, however he likes to dress it up, condemns 3.5 million mainly poor pensioners to go to their graves without a penny in compensation. Some friend of the oppressed indeed.

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 Usha Prasad ordered to pay £20,000 costs in hearing held in her absence

Nadia Motraghi KC – from Old Square Chambers, barrister for the Epsom and St Helier NHS Trust

Judge rules her case had ” no prospect of success” and she was ” unreasonable ” to pursue the claim

UPDATE: The figure was amended when Usha received the judgement from exclusive of VAT to including VAT – that reducing the total figure to be paid to £20,000 instead of £24,000.

Employment Judge Ms EJ Mclaren today ordered Dr Usha Prasad to pay Epsom and St Helier University NHS Trust £20,000 in a hearing she did not attend due to ill health which had not been accepted by the tribunal.

The decision is a pyrrhic victory for the trust, Capsticks solicitors, and a barrister, Nadia Motraghi, from Old Square Chambers, who had originally sought to claim £150,000 but had their claim reduced to £20,000 – the maximum that can be charged in a summary hearing. Much of the money will be swallowed up in fees charged to the trust by lawyers, Nadia Motraghi, and Capsticks solicitor Jessica Blackburn, who have already made nearly £100,000 between them from pursuing Dr Prasad on behalf of the trust. See my blog on the paper submitted by Capsticks to the tribunal here.

Dr Usha Prasad

The handling of this case in my view is yet another example of why employment tribunals are totally unsuited to investigating whistleblowing cases.

For a start two judges have taken totally different views of whether Dr Prasad was fit to plead. Judge E J Baker basically decided that a doctor’s note was not good enough to prove she was ill. But only last month acting regional judge Katharine Andrews decided on a fresh doctor’s note to cancel another hearing involving the trust on the grounds that Dr Prasad needed a long rest and should not face any hearing until next April. It makes judicial decisions by non medically qualified judges seem like a lottery. This of course was not mentioned by Nadia Motraghi in the hearing as it would have undermined her client’s case.

Second the inequality of arms in these hearings. Dr Prasad has already spent a small fortune on lawyers in some of the hearings. So I know she decided she would not be represented by a brief at this hearing because if she lost it would cost her nearly double the cash -nearer £40,000. For the trust unlimited taxpayer’s funds can be spent on lawyers and it is not their money. Not bad for a trust that is already in financial difficulties – just cancel a few operations instead. I also note other lawyers offer a capped fixed fee if a private company is bringing a complex case against an employee – otherwise they would not get the business.

So it is rather hollow for the trust to claim as the judge solemnly pronounced – this is a big cost to a public authority caused by a case ” which had no prospect of success”. It is a big cost because the trust deliberately chose to use some of the most expensive lawyers in town – Old Square Chambers – and fell for paying for 21 lawyers from Capsticks.

Now Nadia Motraghi, whose submission was accepted in full by the judge, painted Dr Prasad as being a ” Jeckyll and Hyde ” character – not mature enough to realise her case was going nowhere and making repeated claims of unequal pay, racism and sexism she could not substantiate but turned into a totally different person when it came to paying the costs. She told the tribunal that she was very intelligent and capable of earning at least £116,000 a year as a good cardiologist and with a house that had gone up £300,000 in value which could be sold. She also used the fact that she was very popular in the Yorkshire hospital she had worked while being clinically restricted at Epsom. Any objective person might ask how come her talents weren’t equally recognised in Epsom.

Now the final issue is the whistleblowing claim. I had wondered why Jessica Blackburn, in a letter to her, had insisted it lacked any merit. Nadia Motraghi gave the game away. She had she had not produced any evidence to justify a risk to patient safety – no emails had been produced to prove this.

Then I remembered the judgement of Tony Hyams -Parish, which was used to justify the costs by judge E J Baker after he dismissed all her claims. There WAS pretty convincing evidence of a serious breach of procedure in an ” avoidable death ” of a heart patient and it was admitted by Dr Richard Bogle, head of the cardiology department. The death in the hospital was never reported to the coroner. You can read about this on my blog here. You can then read about the Hyams-Parish judgement. You can see it here.

What you will notice is that the evidence in the hearing is never covered in the judgement. Now judge Hyams-Parish, to borrow Nadia Motraghi’s words, is an intelligent man. He would know there are no record of the hearing and the judge’s notes are secret. So by not mentioning this in his judgement it is erased from the public record as if it never existed. Only the fortuitous chance that a journalist was there – and that is now very rare – is there a record. So that blog is the only record that it happened.

So it is not surprising that the trust can confidently claim there is no whistleblowing. The judge has been very helpful to the trust by expunging it from the record. As I wrote at the time this decision was a stain on British justice.

You may wonder why Dr Prasad, a whistleblower, did not turn up and the tribunal was unable to contact her. You can read the statement from Dr Ward here:

Dr David Ward, a retired cardiologist and supporter of Dr Prasad. put up a statement during the hearing in the tribunal chat box on he knew Dr Prasad was not attending :” I believe it is my duty as a consultant physician and longstanding colleague and witness to her state of mind throughout these prolonged proceedings to draw attention to the Tribunal that she is not fit to plead. She is in a state of extreme distress such that she is not able to attend. This hearing will cause further detriments to her health. I believe her GP has written a letter to this effect. “

Today he issued a further statement: “

Dr David Ward

“I wish to point out that the stress that has been experienced by Dr Usha Prasad throughout these proceedings was evident at the hearing in November 2021 before Mr Hyams-Parish. I know that Dr Prasad and the journalist, Mr David Hencke, have asked for the audio-visual recordings which I am sure would confirm this.  

2Her inability to recall events, emails, or to refer to documentation within the extensive bundle, whilst giving oral evidence is because of extreme distress. She was not merely tired, but suffered from mental fatigue, which leads to loss of concentration when “put on the spot” under cross-examination in public at a hearing.  

“I consider it is my professional obligation to point this out and would suggest that the audio-visual record of the proceedings of November 2021 are made available to provide objective evidence of the points I have made. It goes without saying that any costs awarded against Dr Prasad would be very damaging to her current state of mind and health. “

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: 50swomen prepare to take the DWP to court again over failure to compensate them for lost pensions

Top human rights lawyer and a past president of the Law Society to draw up legal case strategy for 3.5 million women

John Cooper KC Pic credit: 25 Bedford Row Chambers

CEDAWinLaw, the successor body to BackTo60, announced today that it has started preparations to take the Department for Work and Pensions to court again.

The move will re-ignite the row over the long drawn out dispute over the failure by government to compensate or recognise the plight of 3.5 million women who had to wait an extra six years for their pension. At present progress on the dispute is stymied by the long time the Parliamentary Ombudsman is taking to decide how much compensation the women are entitled to and the scope of their complaints.

David Greene. Pic credit: Law Society Gazette

Mel Stride, the work and pensions secretary, and Laura Trott, the pensions minister have also blocked any discussion of mediation between CEDAWinLAW and the government hiding behind Robert Behrens, the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s protracted delay in reaching any decision on the issue. This particular claim by ministers is vigorously contested by Jocelynne Scutt, the Australian judge, who says both processes are separate and mediation is possible while the Ombudsman considers his report

In a statement today CEDAWinLAW said: “CEDAWinLAW has instructed John Cooper KC ‘Top Silk’ out of 25bedfordrow.com via David Greene, Senior Partner, edwincoe.com to represent all 1950’s Women in a Group Class Action against the Secretary of State for Work & Pensions out of The Judge’s Report which sets out in depth the way in which those affected have enforceable rights which have been breached.

We plan to initially raise £15,000 to determine a case strategy with Counsel to be published, in due course.”

John Cooper is one of the leading human rights lawyers, having been the lead prosecutor in the People’s Iran Tribunal in The Hague; a leading KC in the Manchester Arena bombings inquiry, numerous high profile murder trials and fraud cases and is described as the preferred KC for cases which challenge the Establishment.

He said today: “This is an important challenge for so many 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 a first class legal team”

David Greene is regarded as an expert in bringing Class Actions for groups and cited as one of the best litigators in the City. He is a past President of the Law Society which represents solicitors.

Mel Stride, work and pensions secretary

The announcement today was made inevitable by Mel Stride, the works and pensions secretary, refusing any mediation talks. These had been offered by Garden Court Chambers and ministers initially decided to ignore the request only to find themselves under pressure by Garden Court Chambers to have to respond. as it is a recognised legal process. Once he had refused he opened himself up to potential legal action. The offer for mediation still stands.

The decision today is also a victory for CEDAWinLAW, whose predecessor BackTo60, were refused a hearing of their judicial review by the Supreme Court after initially winning a case to bring it in the lower courts.

Jocelynne Scutt

By doggedly pursuing the issue despite this setback they got Jocelynne Scutt, former anti discrimination commissioner in Tasmania and an Australian judge, to hold a people’s tribunal, assisted by Garden Court Chambers. Her findings produced in a report found that 50swomen had been the subject of direct discrimination contrary to international law under the UN Convention of the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women and Girls, ratified by Margaret Thatcher in 1986.

Despite attempts to pretend this was of no significance notably by Andrew Gwynne, MP who supports WASPI and is now a Labour shadow minister for social care, as just ” a personal view”, lawyers from three firms, Garden Court Chambers ( for mediation) ,25 Bedford Row, and Edwin Coe (for the class action) have decided that it presents an arguable case.

CEDAWinLAW is seeking to raise £15,000 to cover the development of a legal case strategy . Their website if you want to donate is here.

A decision to go back to the courts will present fresh problems for the DWP which thought it had seen the end of legal action after the judicial review was blocked by the Supreme Court. It could also present problems for the Ombudsman’s Office as Robert Behrens used the previous legal action to pause his investigation.

I have asked both to comment. The Parliamentary Ombudsman’s Office said “as far as we are aware no legal proceedings have been issued so no implications for our investigation.”

Please donate to Westminster Confidential to allow me to continue my exclusive reporting.

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

Martyn Pitman tribunal : Health trust never minuted meeting which led to the whistleblower consultant’s eventual sacking

Dr Martyn Pitman Pic Credit: Adele Bouchard Hampshire Chronicle

The second day of the employment tribunal hearing brought by Dr Martyn Pitman, the whistleblower consultant obstetrician and gynaecologist, against Hampshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, was entirely devoted to a character assassination by the trust’s lawyers to attempt to prove he could not work with anyone. This is the key point of the trust’s grounds for sacking him.

Yesterday the doctor had issued a statement – which I was unable to report because of the tribunal’s remote access tech crash – explaining why he had brought the case and why he thought patient safety was at risk under new management at the Royal Hampshire Hospital’s midwifery service.

As the Press Association, who were at the court ,reported: “Mr Pitman said the merger of Royal Hampshire County Hospital with Basingstoke and North Hampshire Hospital NHS Trust in 2012 “proved challenging due to significant differences in the philosophy of care and management style”.

“I was justifiably reluctant to follow the low-risk, senior midwifery-led, pro-normalisation model of care championed by our new partners. I believe that, in the 21st century, maternity care should be patient-focused.

“Unfortunately this stance, somewhat professionally unpopular at the time, but now fully supported following recent enforced changes in UK maternity practice, made me vulnerable to managerial challenge.”

Effectively it meant more home than hospital births raising issues of patient safety. It was this change that led to a revolt by midwives who threatened a ” vote of no confidence” that enraged the managers and which Dr Pitman, who had worked in the hospital for over 20 years supported them.

It was this that led to the clash. As he said in his statement:

“Instead of working with me and my fellow consultants to address the concerns that had been raised, senior managerial colleagues realised the individual and organisational damage that our disclosures could cause.

“They chose instead to recruit the willing assistance of their senior trust managerial colleagues to subject me to a formal Managing High Professional Standards Investigations (MHPSI).

“As a direct consequence of exerting my professional responsibility in whistleblowing concerns I was subjected to brutal retaliatory victimisation.”

Today it emerged that the initial meeting between management and the three senior midwifery managers that led to the decision to launch an internal investigation into Dr Pitman’s conduct in backing the dispute was never minuted. The three had already accused him of bullying and one claimed she had to rush to the toilet to cry after a meeting with him.

This decision is remarkably similar to the action taken by the managers at the Epsom and St Helier University NHS Trust – who set up an informal unminuted group – so they could pursue whistleblower cardiology consultant Usha Prasad and sack her for raising whistleblowing concerns and claims of racism and sexism.

Dr Pitman told the tribunal he was ” astonished ” there were no minutes of the meeting. ” This was the meeting that set in motion a process that led my eventual sacking and end of my career at the hospital.”

Day’s grilling by Mark Sutton, KC

His answer was part of a day’s grilling by Mark Sutton ,KC the former head of chambers and part time judge at Old Square Chambers, where he accused Dr Pitman, on behalf of the trust, of behaving in a rude and arrogant way, declining to meet people, neglecting patients, slamming a door at a meeting, causing one member of the senior midwifery managers, to hand in her resignation because of his bullying , planning revenge on the trust and raising issues that ” were not in the wider public interest” by bringing this case.

Dr Pitman refuted these allegations. He pointed out that the letter of resignation from the manager came at a time when he was not at the hospital so he could not have bullied her. The accusation of planning to take a holiday at Christmas when they needed a consultant and therefore neglecting patients was caused by the management not telling him they had changed the procedures for staff to book holidays.

He categorically denied planning revenge against the hospital management but told the tribunal that when he returned before he was dismissed he found the situation concerning the management of the midwifery service had not improved and was worse.

The hearing continues tomorrow.

The trust in a fresh statement said:

“The trust ensured that all issues raised by Mr Pitman were thoroughly and impartially investigated, including in some instances through external review. Every effort was made to repair his relationships with the maternity and clinical colleagues in question – efforts which were unfortunately unsuccessful.

“We are increasingly concerned that Mr Pitman’s representation of the reasons for his dismissal could discourage others from raising important issues.”

Please donate to Westminster Confidential to allow me to continue my forensic reporting.

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

Protest demos and tech chaos at the start of whistleblower obstetrician Martyn Pitman’s case at the employment tribunal

Hearing reveals disjointed top management at Royal Hampshire hospital with midwives threatening ” vote of no confidence” in senior staff

Patients and NHS staff supporters of Dr Pitman stage demo outside the court

The long awaited three week hearing brought by Martyn Pitman, the popular whistleblower obstetrician and gynaecologist, against his dismissal by Hampshire Hospitals NHS Trust began yesterday.

Before even the court met in Southampton demonstrators turned up outside the building with placards expressing support for the doctor with some saying ” whistleblower or witch hunt”. Dr Pitman has a Facebook page ” Friends of Martyn Pitman, which has 1,700 followers – such is his support in Hampshire.

The trust does not consider he was sacked for whistleblowing

Then before the hearing could begin the tribunal’s remote access system crashed under the weight of journalists, including the BBC and the Press Association, and people wanting to report and observe the case. There had been doubt whether remote access would be granted by the judge – as it was said it had been ruled out. But with possibly up to 100 people from prominent medics and other whistleblowers the judge who is hearing the case relented.

As a result apart from a few journalists who managed to get into the small court nobody could hear the morning’s hearing as Dr Pitman started his evidence.

Remote access was restored about 2.15 pm but only 25 people were allowed to use it. Luckily I was one of the 25.

Dr Martyn Pitman Pic Credit: Adele Bouchard Hampshire Chronicle

From the afternoon’s session when Dr Pitman was cross questioned by Old Square Chambers lawyer, Mark Sutton for the trust, it became pretty clear that the trust was going for a character assassination of the doctor who had raised patient and staff safety issues and was critical of the way senior management were handling it.

The issue discussed during the afternoon centred around strong misgiving by midwives working at the Winchester Hospital who were calling for a ” vote of no confidence ” against the nursing and midwives management. The consultant took up their cause.

Mr Sutton cited memos from senior staff which portrayed the consultant as an intimidating bully of women blocking the door at one meeting to prevent a senior manager leaving and leaving one senior manager ” crying in the toilet ” after a meeting with him. He was also dubbed ” an agitator” by Mr Sutton for taking up the midwives cause rather than leaving senior managers to sort it out between them.

Dr Pitman pointed out that the allegation he was a blocking a door was completely false as the meeting was in a small room and there were no seats left when he got there , so all he could do was lean against the door.

As for the meeting with another senior manager she had claimed that she had rushed out and went to the toilet to cry after meeting him. His version was this was a ” connivance” and not true. He told the tribunal that ” if this was true I would have been sacked the next day.” Instead he had been invited to further meetings to resolve it. It turned out both complainants were close friends.

And as for the accusation that he was an agitator Dr Pitman said that all he did was to ask for the opinions of all staff from health assistants to senior consultants about what they thought about the midwives concerns.

” I didn’t say what my opinion about it was so as not to influence them. I just asked what he thought.”

He added he had been “humbled ” by the fact that staff trusted him to look into the case.

The hearing continues today.

Please donate to Westminster Confidential to allow me to continue my forensic reporting.

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

Dr Jocelynne Scutt on why mediation is the only legal way forward to solve the 13 year old pensions dispute for 1950s women

Davina Lloyd interviews Dr Jocelynne Scutt, author of the groundbreaking Judge’s report on the plight of 1950s women who faced a six year delay in getting their pensions

Meanwhile Rob Behrens, the Parliamentary Ombudsman, stalls WASPI on any date they will get his delayed findings

It is well worth watching the above video interview with Dr Jocelynne Scutt which explains clearly and concisely the current impasse over resolving the dispute between 3.5 million 1950s born women and the government over the six year delay in getting their pensions.

She provides both a clear explanation of why an Alternative Dispute Resolution is the only way to solve the impasse and why the Ombudsman’s current draft report – now being rewritten – only provides a partial solution to the problem by concentrating solely on the delay caused by maladministration and not on the direct discrimination against the women themselves under the UN Convention on the Elimination of all Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). The latter is crucial because Mrs Thatcher signed up and ratified this convention in 1986 and the UK is responsible to the UN in Geneva to follow its provisions.

As Dr Scutt argues ” the law is the law”.

Laura Trott MP Pensions Minister Pic credit: Official Portrait, House of Commons

Her explanation comes as the pension minister, Laura Trott, has muddied the waters saying that the offer of mediation by the internationally respected law firm Garden Court Chambers, cannot be taken up at the moment by Mel Stride, the works and pension secretary, because the Parliamentary Ombudsman is still working on his report.

Laura Trott is wrong. Mediation can go ahead while the Parliamentary Ombudsman is still investigating as it is an entirely separate from whatever the Ombudsman recommends. Indeed it might save Rob Behrens a lot of work as he is obviously struggling to put together a fresh report and would probably love to drop this hot potato.

The reason why Laura Trott is offering these lame excuses and why there is silence from Mel Stride, I suspect, is that Garden Court has started a legal process by writing now twice to the Secretary of State and offering to act as impartial mediators to end this dispute. Their reputation as impartial mediators is second to none.

“No reply” Mel Stride, secretary of State for Work and Pensions

He is trying to avoid replying because if he says yes – it will automatically go ahead. But if he says no, his lawyers at the Department for Work and Pensions have probably warned him he risks the whole matter going back to the courts. If that happens what sensible judge is not going to think the Secretary of State is being obstructive. To borrow Cabinet colleague Michael Gove’s words on another matter, he will be portrayed as “a blocker not a builder.”

The dilemma both the government and Parliamentary Ombudsman are facing is what is the position of the UK under CEDAW. If Dr Scutt’s cogent judgement is correct,, they just can’t ignore the implications of direct discrimination for this particular group of people. It is the ” elephant in the room.”

I am grateful to the Waspi Pembrokeshire branch for tweeting about the recent meeting between the Parliamentary Ombudsman and Waspi which ended in a stalemate despite them sending in two lawyers to help argue their case. The Ombudsman could give no publication date when this so called ” urgent” issue could be resolved and talked of completely rewriting the second part of its report because of the issues ” Waspi and others ” had raised.

Rebecca Hilsenrath,chief exec of the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s Office

I suspect the “others” refers to Dr Scutt’s judgement as I know CEDAWinLaw has sent her judgement to the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s chief executive, Rebecca Hilsenrath, and I can’t see how the Ombudsman can produce a report without referring to it. Mrs Hilsenrath has also agreed to meet CEDAWinLAW on a date yet to be agreed.

Again I advise everybody to watch the interview for a clear understanding of the present position taken by CEDAWinLAW as everyone awaits events.

Please donate to Westminster Confidential to allow me to continue my investigations.

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

Martyn Pitman: Tribunal opens next week on a popular sacked obstetrician’s fight against a NHS trust on patient safety

But it appears the employment tribunal is trying to block the public and press from attending the hearing

Martyn Pitman: Pic credit: Adele Bouchard Hampshire Chronicle

Next week in a cramped magistrates court in Southampton an employment tribunal judge will hear an extraordinary case about an extremely popular obstetrician and an exemplary clinician who was sacked by the Hampshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust after he raised issues of patient and staff safety in its maternity services.

The trust has denied that he was dismissed because of whistleblowing or raising patient safety issues -claiming that it wants people to speak up about these issues. In a statement last June it said : ” no member of staff has ever been dismissed for whistleblowing or raising concerns over patient safety; and they never will be.” But despite the dispute with Dr Pitman going on for four and a half years it has never said publicly why it dismissed him and will have to explain itself to the tribunal next week.

In the meantime the 57 year old obstetrician and gynaecologist has had unprecedented support from the people in Hampshire . A Facebook group called Friends of Martyn Pitman was set up by Lynda Emptage, a patient of Martyn’s for 20 years, who was so upset about news of his dismissal, that she wanted an inquiry. It now has 1,700 members.

Sarah Parish Pic credit: Somerset Live

He has also been publicly praised by  Broadchurch actress Sarah Parish who credits Martyn with saving not only her life but also her daughter Nell’s life. She had a late baby in her early 40s and without his intervention in an emergency she believes both of them would have died. He has also had an article about his concerns in The Times and appeared on breakfast TV.

The timing of the case is also embarrassing for the trust as it comes straight after the national scandal at the Countess of Chester hospital where Lucy Letby, a nurse, was convicted by a jury of murdering babies and the management of the trust emerged as threatening doctors and forcing them to write a letter of apology to her after they raised genuine concerns.

The trust appears to have been extremely reluctant to have any employment tribunal hearing at all. In April this year it attempted to strike out his defence and was largely unsuccessful.

Now the trust has decided to spend hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayer’s money employing the former head of Old Square Chambers and part time employment judge, Mark Sutton, for the three week hearing. Mr Sutton is more used to taking cases to the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal as well as representing trusts and doctors ” fitness to practice ” cases. His CV says he” is the sort of person who would inspire confidence in any judge” but also an expert lawyer on doctor’s disciplinary cases.

Dr Pitman, who is backed by the British Medical Association, is also represented by Old Square Chambers. His brief is Jack Mitchell. His CV on Old Square Chambers website says he is the ” go to junior counsel ” for whistleblowers and he has written two books on whistleblowing and an article on  whistleblowing in sport. He has represented Babcock, Eurotunnel, Paul Smith, Royal Mail, Thomson Reuters, The Ritz, Terrence Higgins Trust and the BBC in previous cases. He has represented clients with successful claims against companies including, Lloyds Bank, HSBC and HP.”

So whatever happens in this case Old Square Chambers are going to make a small fortune out of this hearing. Solicitors in the case are Bevan Brittan, for the trust and Capital Law for Dr Pitman.

Entrance to Southampton Magistrates Court. Pic Credit: Southampton Daily Echo

There is also some concern about whether the public and the press will be able to hear and report the case. For a start Southampton Magistrates Court is a very small one. Some people say it is pokey and will hardly hold many people once the teams of lawyers and staff from the trust have taken up the seats. The entrance as you can see above is hardly inviting. Given the huge interest among the public in the case with 1700 on one website supporting Dr Pitman it is rather surprising the court authorities chose such a pokey venue.

It is also not listed as a hybrid hearing – both in person and on line – even though Southampton can have hearings remotely. People, including myself, and a number of distinguished physicians and whistleblowers across the UK have applied for a remote link to hear the proceedings but have had no response from the employment tribunal service beyond a standardised letter of acknowledgement.

Frankly as the judiciary is supposed to be committed to ” open justice” I think a refusal to allow people to attend remotely will be seen as ” hole in a corner justice” particularly as employment tribunals do not keep a record of the proceedings themselves.

Please donate to Westminster Confidential to allow me to continue my forensic reporting.

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