A senior employment judge has intervened to try and force whistleblower consultant cardiologist Dr Usha Prasad, who is now ill, to attend the Croydon costs hearing on Wednesday where she will face a £180,000 bill after losing an employment tribunal case.
Judge Omar Khalil has ignored a letter from her GP warning that she is under severe mental stress after years of appearances before employment tribunals, being referred to the General Medical Council which exonerated her but then lead to an internal inquiry run by the Epsom and St Helier University NHS Trust which tried to brand her as ” unfit for purpose” as a human being because it had to say she was an excellent doctor.
Her disclosure that the trust covered up an ” avoidable death” of a heart patient at the trust by not reporting it to the coroner was confirmed by Dr Richard Bogle, the head of cardiology , during an employment tribunal hearing.
But judge Tony Hyams-Parish, mindful that there are no records kept of tribunal hearings, expunged this disclosure in his judgement which rejected all her claims.
Dr Usha Prasad has asked for a postponement because she doesn’t feel well enough or capable of defending herself against expensive lawyers hired at the taxpayers’ expense by Epsom and St Helier University NHS Trust. She hasn’t the money now to employ a barrister to defend her at the hearing.
Dr P Bailey, her GP in Wakefield has written to the costs tribunal saying “”She is experiencing physical and emotional signs of distress…. she does not feel in an appropriate state of mind at present to represent herself in the process currently.”
“… I would be grateful if her current mental state was taken into account regarding scheduling and potential postponement.”
The regional judge and tribunal are refusing to take any notice of the GP’s plea.
In reply Lynn Head, for the tribunal says today:
“Acting Regional Judge Khalil has asked me to write to the parties. The claimant’s application to postpone the Costs hearing listed for 23 and 24 August 2023 is refused. The Hearing has been listed since 8 March 2023 and the dates should thus have been reserved from receipt of that notice. “The Tribunal has previously addressed that an outstanding EAT appeal relating to liability is not a reason in itself not to proceed with a Costs Hearing. The question of enforcement of any Costs Order (if made) is a separate consideration pending an outstanding appeal. “The claimant’s request for notes has also received judicial consideration previously, more than once. No details have been proved of the claimant’s important meeting.
“The claimant could have provided dates of unavailability of his counsel (shortly after the Tribunal indicated it would be listing a Costs Hearing (17 February 2023), as the respondent did, but the claimant did not do so. The Tribunal has considered the claimant’s medical evidence dated 18 August 2023 but in the light of the listing of this Hearing since 8 March 2023, the claimant could and should have made arrangements for alternative representation if her previous Counsel was unavailable. A postponement would cause a considerable delay before the panel could reconvene. That is not an overriding objective. The Liability Hearing took place in November 2021.” At this stage it is not clear whether Dr Prasad can or will attend the hearing. The presiding judge will then have to decide what to do.
Please donate to Westminster Confidential to allow me to continue my forensic reporting.
Jessica Blackburn is the senior solicitor and driving force behind the bid by Epsom and St Helier University NHS Trust(ESHUT) to get record £180,000 costs against Dr Usha Prasad, the whistleblower cardiologist who was dismissed by the trust for her disclosures.
As reported earlier a hearing like this is extremely rare, as in 99.95 per cent of all employment tribunal cases no complainant pays any of the employer’s costs – much to chagrin of big employment law firms like Capsticks.
She was educated at the highly selective Wallington High School for Girls and graduated from the University of Southampton Law School in 2014. She took two postgraduate legal practice courses at the private University of Law in London and got a distinction. She was a trainee solicitor at RadcliffesLeBrasseur , a law firm now part of Weightmans. She took a job as a qualified solicitor with Capsticks in 2018 and was promoted to a senior associate three years later. A native English speaker, among the languages she has is elementary knowledge is Yoruba, a West African tribal language. She also played a senior role in Capsticks celebrations of Black History Month last year.
Claire McLaughlan ,chairs MHPS inquiries
At Capsticks she specialises in defending health trusts and the police and cites dealing with whistleblowers as one of her specialities. She is also involved in advising trusts running complex doctor cases under the national framework, Maintaining High Professional Standards in the Modern NHS – internal hearings like the one already held by ESHUT over Dr Usha Prasad chaired by Claire Mclaughlan that came to the bizarre decision that she was “unfit for purpose”.( see my blog here and here.)
Her top tribunal case cited on her page is one heard by Judge Auerbach in 2021 between Mr Abgeze and Barnet, Enfield and Haringey Mental Health Trust ( judgement here) over the controversial issue of people’s rights in zero hours contracts. Mr Abgeze, who was on a zero hours contract, was suspended and then reinstated by the trust. But because he was on a zero hours contract he was unable to apply for shifts and claimed compensation. Judge Auerbach threw out his claim.
She writes: “This will be a welcome decision to NHS Trusts, and other organisations that have similar casual worker arrangements.”
Certainly as this week’s cost hearing approaches there is a big stand off between her and Dr Usha Prasad who under increasing stress and suffering health issues and asked for a postponement. But it looks like that either Jessica Blackburn doesn’t believe her (despite a doctor’s note) or does not want to believe her and doesn’t want her schedule for the historic case delayed.
Forensic details of Usha Prasad’s finances demanded by Capsticks for the health trust
This is the letter she sent demanding details of Dr Prasad’s finances to make sure she will be ready to pay the £180,000.
“We write in respect of the hearing to determine the Respondent’s costs application against you listed by the Tribunal for 23 and 24 August 2023. The Trust has incurred in excess of £150,000 plus VAT in legal costs in defending your claims (2 and 3), which were all dismissed.
On 19 June 2023, we wrote to you in the following terms:
“As part of the Tribunal’s consideration of the Respondent’s costs application, the Tribunal may take into account your financial means. Therefore, please can you disclose by 23 July 2023, any evidence of your means if you intend to rely on this at the costs hearing, so that this information can be contained within the costs hearing bundle.”
To date we have received nothing. We are not clear whether this is because, if you are ordered to pay costs, that your position is that you would be financially able to meet any order made by the Tribunal, or, on the other hand that you have elected not to disclose any information.
We remind you that under Schedule 1, rule 84 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013, the Tribunal may (but is not required in all circumstances) take into account a paying party’s ability to pay.
Ability to pay
84.In deciding whether to make a costs, preparation time, or wasted costs order, and if so in what amount, the Tribunal may have regard to the paying party’s (or, where a wasted costs order is made, the representative’s) ability to pay.
If you intend to argue (or might do so, depending on the level of costs awarded) that you would not be financially able to meet the terms of any costs award, if so ordered, the Respondent requests you urgently provide supporting information and evidence of the same.
This should include:
· information about your present level of income and remuneration as well as of what you have earned since the liability judgment; any property you currently own (whether in whole or in part, whether land, buildings or otherwise), any investments, and the content of any bank / building society or similar accounts and any other information relevant to your ability to pay an award of costs. This information should cover assets worldwide not only in the UK.
· You should also provide information and evidence regarding your financial commitments such as rent/ mortgage.
· Evidence to support the information provided should be provided.
· As regards your employment related earnings, pay slips, P60s, tax returns or record of invoices paid through agencies or similar and any current or recent contract of employment, or for your services.
· As regards bank accounts, savings and investments, including ISAs, this should include copies of your recent bank (etc) statements. Downloaded statements or screenshots from a bank (etc)’s website are acceptable.
· The Tribunal will need to understand your current financial commitments, therefore if you have any loans, mortgages, or other regular payments made such as rent or utilities, documents in support of the same (e.g. mortgage statement, loan agreement/payment schedule, rent payments) should be provided.
· Where you own one or more properties you should identify the approximate current value of the property concerned and the balance of any mortgage.
· Please can you also confirm your current employment/engagement status, including whether the number of hours worked and whether that if permanent or temporary (and if so on what basis) and your residential address.
Threat judge will be told if she does not provide the information
The Respondent will draw this letter to the Tribunal if the information and evidence requested is not supplied prior to the hearing but where you contend (whether in writing, or at the hearing) that your means should be taken into account by the Tribunal. It is important that the Respondent understands your position in good time prior to the hearing. In addition, we urgently request confirmation of your position regarding your financial means in order to address this issue in written submissions, the absence of which is delaying completion.
We look forward to receiving confirmation of your position, together with the requested documentation where applicable, as a matter of urgency.”
When she sent the doctor’s note Jessica Blackburn ignored it. You can see what detail Capsticks want – and other whistleblowers facing cost hearings say they have not received such detailed demands.
I informed Jessica Blackburn I was proposing to write a profile of her. Capstick’s press office replied that she could not comment at this time.
Please donate to Westminster Confidential so I can continue my forensic reporting.
It is a fact that among the tens of thousands of employment tribunals held every year claimants do not have to pay their employers costs in 99.95 per cent of all cases.
Therefore it is absolutely extraordinary that Dr Usha Prasad, a whistleblower cardiology consultant at Epsom and St Helier University NHS Trust is facing a special costs tribunal next week for an astonishing £180,000 claim from her employer at the London South tribunal in Croydon.
Even in rare cases where costs are sought the maximum is £20,000 and the level of proof has to be very high. The claimant has to be seen to have been acted “vexatiously, abusively, deceptively or otherwise unreasonably” or has brought proceedings deemed to be misconceived.
Epsom Hospital part of the Epsom and St Helier NHS Trust
However it is looking like that where whistleblowers are sacked and go to an employment tribunal more and more judges have agreed to hold cost hearings so the public body can recover some or all of its costs. And lawyers acting for these bodies threaten huge costs against whistleblowers to deter them from proceeding further. This has been used against Dr Chris Day in his decade long battle against the Health Education Executive and Greenwich and Lewisham NHS health Trust over patient safety and , against Dr Duffy, author of ‘Whistleblowing in the Wind’. Non NHS whistleblowers also face this. More recently this involved a case against Alison McDermott, a management consultant, at Sellafield and the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA), who exposed a raft of bullying, harassment and other grave failings at the nuclear plant.
Alison then faced a £40,000 cost hearing – both bodies sought the maximum figure – with judge Lancaster refusing to accept she was a whistleblower- only to have his decision declared ” unsafe” by a judge at the high court. He determined that the costs were unsafe and must be ‘quashed.’ HHJ Auerbach also overruled Judge Lancaster and confirmed that Alison was whistleblower. A FOI has revealed that Sellafield and the NDA have spent an extraordinary sum – £660,000 resisting that she was a whistleblower.
Unbelievably Sellafield and the NDA have just sought to reinstate the cost hearing again with the same judge who made the ” unsafe” costs ruling which has already been thrown out by the higher tribunal. Which of course sends a chilling message to any would be whistleblowers at the most dangerous nuclear site in Western Europe.
In Dr Usha Prasad’s case the trust and its lawyers, Capsticks, have gone one step further by getting a hearing next week wanting the judge to order a £180,000 costs finding against her.
Now in researching whether this has happened before – the only case I found which is highlighted by the Association of Costs Lawyers is Gosalakkal v University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust, where the paediatrician who made a series of whistleblowing claims walked out of the costs assessment hearing and ended up being ordered to pay £82,000 to the trust. This went to appeal in 2019 and the judge was criticised for misunderstanding the whistleblowing nature of the case and the initial award was quashed. It turned out there was a breakdown of relationships among consultants there as well, a disciplinary hearing and he was dismissed. He left Leicester and got a new job in the United States.
Judge Heap ruled in April 2017 that she could do this citing rule 78 of tribunal regulations set in 2013 which allows her to exceed the £20,000 limit by having a detailed costs assessment or send it to a county court to decide. I am pretty sure Capsticks will be citing these rules and the case next week.
I am sure the Association of Costs Lawyers would have highlighted any higher settlement than this so this will make the Dr Prasad hearing a new record for tribunals pursuing whistleblowers for costs. The biggest sum ever awarded at an ET tribunal to an employer was £432,001.85 in a dispute between Copthorne Hotels and a Mr Tan who had withdrawn any whistleblowing claims.
The problem for Dr Prasad is that these hearings specifically rule out discussing the merits of previous tribunal hearings in her case. She has had enormous support from other practising colleagues at the Epsom Trust trust. You only have to look at a website to see the appreciation of her work at Pinderfields General Hospital in West Yorkshire to see pages of praise from patients. These were made while the case against her was being pursued by the Epsom and St Helier NHS Trust.
She has still to await the official result of an employment appeal tribunal hearing against her case claiming perversity and bias and error of law by the judge involved ( see below) and the trust has secured a costs hearing in just over five months while the average wait for the overloaded employment tribunal system to hear a case is now 335 days. She has been refused access to the judge’s notes to defend herself and her barrister who appeared for her previously is not available to defend her.
Judge Tony Hyams -Parish
The judge who heard her case Tony Hyams-Parish, threw out all “her allegations of victimisation, sex harassment, and sex and race discrimination” and ignored in his judgement the admission from the trust that it had failed to report to the coroner an ” avoidable death” of a heart patient treated by another doctor and tried to get her to change a report on the incident. My reports of this part of the hearing is the only record that it happened. See it here and here.
Capsticks have seized on this to write to her saying :” The Respondent has incurred very substantial costs indeed in defending the unmeritorious proceedings, of in excess of £150,000 plus VAT. The costs incurred correlate to the Claimant’s unreasonable conduct and the unmeritorious nature of her complaints.”
What is also missing is that the trust put in 43 complaints to the General Medical Council to build up a case against her.. Every one of those complaints was thrown out by the GMC after a highly skilled cardiologist looked at them and she was automatically approved to continue working as a doctor without any further revalidation.
The BMA despite receiving letters of support from her medical colleagues has refused to give her any financial backing to fight this hearing, citing that it did not have a 51 per cent or more chance of success. In my view that is short sighted as far as I can see the hearing is about the costs incurred by the trust in fighting a whistleblower case and if they do not challenge this, they are leaving all their members to be hung out to dry by NHS trusts.
Not to put to fine a point on all this my thoughts are this has all the hallmarks of being a ” Kangeroo tribunal ” next week where a litigant in person, an excellent doctor, is being arraigned by legal heavyweights with little chance of being able to defend herself. Let’s see if this is true next week
Please donate to Westminster Confidential so I can continue my forensic reporting.
Convicted paedophile Carl Beech – who made the allegations that sparked the inquiry
The flawed £2 million Operation Midland investigation by the Met Police into alleged sexual abuse by VIPs and politicians which contained sensational false allegations of child murders from a man who turned out to be sex offender himself could be re-opened after four years.
Carl Beech was sentenced to 18 years in prison in 2019 on 12 counts of perverting the course of justice and one of fraud.
Police raided the homes of Harvey Proctor and Lord Bramall and Lord Brittan. .
New inquiry to be set up
Former judge Sir Richard Henriques did a highly critical investigation of how the Met Police handled the investigation and also suggested that two other people -known as Witness A and Witness B who both claimed to be victims of child sexual abuse – should also be investigated for perverting the course of justice.
West Midlands Police carried out a further inquiry and has recommended a further inquiry into all the evidence supplied by both witnesses to see if further action should be taken against them. The police force said there were reasonable grounds to think they had perverted the course of justice.
The Met is asking a second police force to decide now whether there is enough evidence to breing charges.
The Met Police also said that new evidence against them had been supplied by a third party.
After the statement Harvey Proctor claimed he was the person who had supplied fresh evidence. I do not know the identities of the two people
The full Met Police statement reads: “
“In 2016, Sir Richard Henriques was asked to carry out a review into the Met’s handling of Operation Midland which was an investigation into non-recent sexual offence allegations against persons of public prominence.
Sir Richard’s report recommended that “offences of attempting to pervert the course of justice be considered” in the cases of two individuals known as witnesses A and B. He added that “it would be appropriate for another police force to carry out such investigations”.
Earlier this year, following a third party referral which included new information, the Metropolitan Police arranged for West Midlands Police to consider all relevant material relating to witnesses A and B in order to advise on whether any further investigation should follow.
That work has now been completed, with West Midlands concluding that there are reasonable grounds to suspect witnesses A and B have committed an offence of perverting the course of justice and that it is in the public interest to open an investigation into whether there is sufficient evidence to justify a prosecution.
Acknowledging that in light of its previous involvement the Met would not be the most appropriate force to carry out this investigation, officers are in the process of agreeing terms of reference with an external force so that the matter can be taken forward.”
Please donate to Westminster Confidential to allow me to continue my reporting.
” Dishy Rishi” or our new Maharajah Pic Credit : Lauren Hurley / No 10 Downing Street
Increasingly desperate about his poll ratings the Prime Minister has turned to dumping green policies as Europe burns. The Tories managed by just under 500 votes to hold Boris Johnson’s old seat of Uxbridge and South Ruislip and claimed that stirring up the introduction of new charges for the ULEZ ( Ultra Low Emissions Zone) being extended to all vehicles entering Greater London helped them hold it. Keir Starmer, the Labour leader, bought the argument.
For the record two other reasons also contributed to counter that view. Despite ULEZ the Green Party polled 893 votes taking more than enough votes from Labour to deny them the seat. And the seat has a substantial Indian minority – who are thrilled to have an Indian PM – with many mothers dubbing him “Dishy Rishi” as they see him as a trailblazer for the future community.
But Sunak’s short term populist stance on these issues aimed at the “boy racer” motorist vote is going to have a devastating effect on the health and lives of ordinary people. In the space of a week the PM has signalled he is against ULEZ, against 20mph speed limits, against restrictions on cars in residential neighbourhoods and in favour of a massive expansion of oil and gas in the North Sea. If he gets more desperate I can see him dropping the ban of new diesel and petrol cars and promising the combustion engine will live forever in the UK.
Bill Esterson Labour’s business and industry spokesman Pic credit: Industry Forum
And none of this is good for long term planning for business to transition to net zero as Labour’s shadow business and industry spokesman, Bill Esterson points out. It could even damage our own car industry as every country we export is switching to electric cars.
As he says: “Over 70% of our car exports go to markets that have already set a phase-out date of fossil vehicles.
Other countries are committed to the transition away from fossil fuels. And they are keeping their commitments.”
All these measures will damage the health of people and cost lives. That is why I think he deserves the title of the Road Kill PM – the roads of the UK will not only be littered with dead wildlife but dead and injured children and pedestrians.
Take the ULEZ zone itself. This is as much a public health issue as an environmental one. Children have died in London because of it so Sadiq Khan is right to introduce it. And the Tories are hypocritical about the zone – it was demanded by Grant Shapps, as transport secretary as part of a cash settlement to bail out Transport for London during the Covid crisis. So it could be called the “Grant Shapps” ULEZ zone as much as Khan’s.
In France ineligible cars are BANNED not charged in Ulez zones
Also drivers chaffing at paying the charge should know that this initiative is not confined to the UK. If they drive to France on holiday they will find they are not charged but banned from driving in a growing number of big city centres and could be fined. And all eligible cars and motorbikes have to carry a clean air sticker or you cannot drive in France.
No wonder doctors have written Sunak and Khan to say.
“Air pollution affects every one of us from before we are born into old age. It not only causes respiratory conditions such as asthma, but also heart attacks, heart arrhythmias, strokes, child developmental disorders, lung cancer and dementia.
“Ulez works. It has already saved lives and prevented many illnesses and hospital admissions.”
As for reviewing 20 mph limits in cities including London. There is no question that will result in more deaths and injuries.
Road crash Pic credit: Brake, road safety charity
Brake, the road safety charity, says:
“A vehicle travelling at 20mph would stop in time to avoid a child running out three car-lengths in front. The same vehicle travelling at 25mph would not be able to stop in time, and would hit the child at 18mph. This is roughly the same impact as a child falling from an upstairs window.
The greater the impact speed, the greater the chance of death. A pedestrian hit at 30mph has a very significant (one in five) chance of being killed. “
Latest statistics for London show the number of collisions has reduced by 25% (from 406 to 304), and collisions resulting in death or serious injury have also reduced by 25% (from 94 to 71), demonstrating the huge impact of lowering speeds to 20mph on many roads.
But for Rishi Sunak to get his votes back and stay in power obviously a few more children or pedestrians killed or maimed every year are a price worth paying. Anyway he seems to go most places by helicopter.
Then there is the big boost to finding North Sea oil with 100 new licences to be issued by the government. Again this is going down the wrong track. The North Sea is not the only place being explored when I was in Namibia a big exploration was under way near Walvis Bay which could yield an enormous new field. At some point the big increase in electric vehicles is going to meet the burgeoning supply of oil and as demand for oil falls so will the price until it becomes uneconomic.
The security claim is rubbish too – since it will be traded on the open market. What is true is that Rishi Sunak’s family firm Infosys will personally benefit every time BP gets a licence as they signed a deal with the oil giant just before the exploration licences were announced. His wealthy family will see the petrodollars rolling in, the more BP win concessions. No doubt the cash will be hidden in some offshore tax account so we won’t know about it.
Next month Rishi Sunak will be in Delhi for the G20 summit and the press there is already very excited about him coming there. Politico Europe is already suggesting he will be mobbed by ecstatic Hindus. And the Times of India has heralded his arrival in Downing Street as a move from ” Empire to the Rishi Raj”. Others see this as revenge for Britain’s Imperial past ruling India. Now Rishi rules over the British people instead.
The choice of helicopters for Rishi Sunak from Maharaja Aviation
Given his penchant for exorbitant expensive helicopter rides over mundane journeys by rail or road I have found the perfect charter company for his travel. It is called Maharaja Aviation and runs a fleet of helicopters. He can fly like a modern fabulous wealthy maharaja across India dispensing baubles to the masses. And in the meantime he can forget the country he rules with its sky high mortgages and rents, sewage in the seas and rivers, food inflation and its demonising of other foreigners who try to seek sanctuary on its shores.
Please donate to Westminster Confidential so I can continue to report independently on issues of the day.
Rob Behrens, Parliamentary Commissioner to stand down in March.
Promise of an early resolution for the £3.6 million 50s born women to get compensation for their delayed pensions appear to have been dashed with no movement from the Parliamentary Ombudsman to solve the problem.
Despite a court agreement in May to revise the final report on compensation for the women to correct what Waspi calls the Ombudsman’s “legally flawed” decision to award minimum compensation for the women who have lost up to £50,000 by the six year delay they faced when the pension age was raised from 60 to 66, nothing has happened. Waspi has raised £147,500 from the public for a judicial review of the decision which never happened.
Angela Madden, chair of Waspi
The Waspi statement in May was very confident the organisation could hold Robert Behrens, the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s feet to the fire and get great concessions for the women. At a Labour Party Conference meeting last year, Angela Madden, chair of Waspi, said she would expect women to get £10,000 a year compensation. See my bloghere.
What a contrast with the downbeat statement a few days ago.
“”WASPI are disappointed and frustrated by the length of time that the Ombudsman is taking to rewrite his Second Report on the injustices cause by DWP maladministration. The Court Order requiring that reconsideration was sealed on 12 May 2023. It is unclear precisely what has been done since then.
” We can confirm that neither we nor, as far as we are aware, any of the sample complainants have been contacted to comment on a draft, or on anything new that the Ombudsman has gathered from the DWP. That opportunity to comment is guaranteed by the Court Order, which suggests that finalisation of the report is still some way off.”
In desperation Waspi have got their lawyers, Bindman’s, to write to the Ombudsman. But as their statement says:
“We have not had the courtesy of a reply. We also have asked for a meeting with William Wragg MP, the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee (PACAC), to whom the Ombudsman reports. That meeting has yet to take place.”
Failure to reply is quite common from the Ombudsman’s Office. BackTo60, who have repeatedly told the Ombudsman that he should have to consider whether the failure to compensate the women is in breach of international agreements signed by the UK government which ratified the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW),.
Dr Jocelynne Scutt
This argument is particular powerful following the report by Dr Jocelynne Scutt, the former Australian anti discrimination commissioner and judge, which found it was in breach of CEDAW and was clearly discriminatory against the 50swomen.
Now while it might be convenient for the government and the Ombudsman to pretend this report doesn’t exist, the findings are being taken seriously by the committee implementing the convention in Geneva who have to do a report to the UN on Britain’s compliance with it. Given the Ombudsman’s public pride of his role on the international scene with other Ombudsmen his reputation could easily be sullied if he is found to have ignored an international convention.
But perhaps he doesn’t care. The other major development while Waspi was awaiting his report is that he is to step down from the job next March. He announced this in his annual report published on July 20 which he said was his valedictory report.
This means when Parliament comes back in September the emphasis will switch to finding a successor, drawing up a short list and having the new Ombudsman’s appointment scrutinised and approved by Parliament via the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee.
What should worry Waspi, which chose to go down this route, is there must be a temptation to delay his findings so his successor has to sort it out. Also even if he does come out with his findings before he leaves, it will be up to his successor to persuade the government to implement them. Given by then Parliament will be engulfed with preparations to fight the next general election, the government might be tempted to push it into the long grass or make vague promises in the hope of garnering votes.
The annual report provides some interesting facts and figures on the operation of the Ombudsman’s Office. A table reveals who uses it showing more women than men complain to the Ombudsman and the main age groups are between 35 and 74 and 84 per cent are white.
The report also reveals disabled people are heavily reliant on it. When one looks at the breakdown of the board however, there is not a single person with experience of a disability on it, which means the disabled have no voice at the top of the organisation. The board has one gay member and three people from ethnic minorities.
The organisation fares well in the employment of women both among its staff and the board as 59 per cent of staff and 58 per cent of the board are women. Disabled people form 13 per cent of the staff just above gay people and just below people from ethnic minorities.
The report also shows that some £588,000 of taxpayers money was spent on management consultancy last year compared with just £22,000 the previous year. This does seem an extraordinary amount of money from a budget which the government has limited.
Please donate to Westminster Confidential to allow me to continue my forensic reporting.
Lord Burnett, the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales (salary £275,534 a year) and two other Court of Appeal judges ( salaries £225,978 each) spent this week delivering a judgement on whether a prisoner could eat a boiled sweet.
In what must be one of the most lofty and byzantine judgements of the year a judicial review at the Court of Appeal threw out a request from a disabled prisoner at Liverpool jail to be able to eat boiled sweets.
The prisoner only known to the courts as JJ is a toothless quadriplegic inmate serving time until 2027 in the health wing of the prison. Lady Justice King delivered the verdict, which the Lord Chief Justice and Lord Justice Lewis concurred after spending time on a hearing and taking advice from the Royal College of Physicians.
In what must have been a very expensive case -since it was an appeal from another high court judge – barristers from top NHS lawyers Hill Dickenson and DAC Beachcroft to defend the prison’s healthcare company, Spectrum community Health. who were caring for him in jail while JJ was in the health wing. JJ had his own barrister, Aswini Weereratne KC.
Lady Justice King pic credit: Law Gazette
Lady Justice King said: “JJ is quadriplegic and without teeth. While his cognitive and communication skills are unimpaired, his physical capacity is limited to pushing a button with one finger. Since 2016 he has been bed-bound and wholly dependent on care staff for all his personal cares and for feeding. He is nursed in a supine position.”
“As a consequence of JJ’s condition, eating food poses a risk of death or serious injury by choking or aspiration. Some foods pose a more significant risk than others. Until 2021, JJ ate a mixed diet of soft and non-soft foods. Meals would be sent to his cell and he would decide whether he was capable of eating them. He would regularly supplement his diet with snacks bought from the prison canteen, including non-soft foods such as boiled sweets.”
Prisoner goes on hunger strike over the denial of boiled sweets
There have been several instances of him choking on food but JJ insisted that he would take responsibility for himself and still wanted to suck boiled sweets.
The care company however were worried about his choking. They called in a therapist who decided that he should only eat soft and bite sized food once his supply of boiled sweets ran out. JJ wanted to choose what he ate and when this was not allowed went on hunger strike only taking high energy fluids to stay alive.
The judge said: “JJ’s approach was, and is, that he could exercise his basic freedom of choice to decide what he will eat, being fully aware of the risks.”
Do not resuscitate me says prisoner
Spectrum wouldn’t agree to this so in December 2021 JJ signed an Advance Decision to Refuse Treatment. In this, JJ confirmed that food refusal was to apply even when his life is at risk and that he does not wish to be ventilated or to have cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). It follows that in the event that JJ choked or aspirated as a consequence of eating a boiled sweet which, as he is quadriplegic, would have been put into his mouth by a carer, neither that carer nor any other medical professional on the ward would be able to intervene to give JJ lifesaving CPR.”
In July 2022, JJ brought a claim for judicial review, contending that Spectrum’s refusal to feed him foods of his choice was irrational, discriminatory, in breach of his common law right of autonomy and his Article 8 right to physical and psychological integrity.”
It went to court and he lost and the judge refused an appeal. But it was decided as the issue was a compelling one it should go to the Court of Appeal.
Here the key issue was elevated to whether a patient can refuse to follow a clinician’s treatment and the fact that prisoners cannot choose what food they can eat – only what the prison choose to provide.
Also a bombshell ruling that as Spectrum was regulated by the Care Quality Commission if a nurse gave JJ a boiled sweet and he choked to death would he or she be prosecuted for gross negligence manslaughter?
Liverpool prison where JJ is held
JJ filed a statement to the court : ” In it he describes how he has little or no quality of life. He is completely bed-bound, lying on his back for 24 hours a day, and is unable to do anything for himself other than call for help or control a television. He concludes his statement by saying that he has lost almost everything in his life and ‘being able to eat what I want represents my last shred of humanity and dignity. I want o be able to cling on to it for as long as I can’.
But the judges rejected this saying ” It may be that in certain different medical circumstances the balance would come down in JJ’s favour but not, in my view, in this case. JJ cannot feed himself. He cannot obtain boiled sweets from the prison shop, unwrap them and put them in his own mouth. The provision of boiled sweets in circumstances where JJ cannot even put a sweet into his mouth is different; it is treatment or care carrying with it the considerable risk that on any given day, giving JJ that boiled sweet may cause him to choke to death and in circumstances where JJs advance decision would prevent all but the most basic life-saving intervention on the part of the person who had given him the boiled sweet.”
So what would happen if a friend came to visit him at Liverpool jail? Presumably the prison will have to confiscate any boiled sweets to comply with the Lord Chief Justice’s ruling. We hear of drugs, illicit mobile phones and porn being smuggled into jail now in this case the judiciary’s top judge has extended it to boiled sweets. Given JJ’s brain is the one part of him not impaired It is over the top.
For highly intelligent people the three cold hearted Court of Appeal judges lack any empathy or humanity in this case. Their judgement is more concerned with avoiding liability for the company and the prison if JJ dies rather than granting him a boiled sweet to make his limited life more pleasurable.
Please donate to Westminster Confidential to allow me to continue my reporting.
Journalists hold a unique position in a democracy. They are the only people with the time, energy and hopefully a decent salary to investigate matters of public interest that the rest of people are too busy or exhausted to have the time and space to devote to it.
Their no hold bars investigations of dodgy politicians, the Royals, the entertainment industry, and business scandals fill our screens, print pages and social media every day. Undercover investigations expose malpractice and bad treatment of vulnerable people. The only caveat to that is some of the media spend loads of money pursuing celebrity gossip and tittle tattle that they believe the public are interested in rather than devoting cash to expose scandals from whistleblowers in the public interest .
But there is one area where there is a wall of silence and that is the media itself. Unlike everything else which is fair game, journalist practices are off limits.
Leveson’s second inquiry should not have been stopped
Now I am not one who wants huge regulation of the press by the state but I supported the Leveson inquiry and it was a mistake not to have the second part of the inquiry which would have examined in detail what happened over the phone hacking scandal that affected more than one national media organisation. Why couldn’t the media be put under the microscope in a judge led inquiry just like we are doing over the Covid 19 inquiry and the Post Office Horizon scandal.
Lord Justice Leveson
In this column I have no intention of going into the detail of the Dan Wotton case – you can follow that by reading Byline Times – and his reaction to the stories on GB News and Twitter. I am upholding the right of journalists to investigate other media if people come to them with allegations of malpractice just like they would with any other area. And sadly most mainstream media avoids doing so.
Not only is malpractice not reported but the BBC tried for years to avoid scrutiny on how well it spends its money and protect its household name journalists and commentators from revealing their salaries.
You may have noticed in the last few weeks that the salaries of top BBC presenters have been highlighted in the news.
BBC’s attempt to avoid scrutiny
The only reason this has happened is because two successive auditor generals took on the BBC which claimed that it was a special case and could not be scrutinised by the National Audit Office or have to reveal the salaries of top people unlike other publicly funded bodies. The NAO was interested in both whether major capital projects like the setting up of Salford Quays and revamping Broadcasting House were value for money. The BBC sought to try and control what the NAO could investigate and even argued that its editorial independence was in jeopardy if the NAO had powers to investigate what it chooses. The defence was rubbish. Is the present auditor general going to spend time investigating whether the latest Panorama was value for money or whether the current BBC political editor, Chris Mason, has made biased reports? I don’t think so..
Misrepresentation of Byline Times by Dan Wootton
One issue over the present furore between Dan Wootton and Byline Times is the misrepresentation of what Byline Times is about by Wootton
At a recent Press Gallery reception in the Commons I had an interesting discussion about this with a Tory MP I have known for a long time. He asked what Byline Times was and was told by other journalists that it was a left wing publication. When I explained to him as a freelance journalist who regularly writes for them on Westminster and Whitehall that the editor, Hardeep Matharu, rightly expected me to get a response from whatever department was facing a highly critical report he was amazed. He had assumed that articles would be left wing polemics, not based on hard fact.
Dan Wootton has claimed Byline Times is a hard left blog. It is nothing of the sort. It is a growing multimedia publication , on line, in print and on TV.
Its determination to get the facts right and collect real evidence was tested when six years ago it took on the powerful Paul Dacre of the Daily Mail exposing journalistic malpractice. Here again there were dire threats to sue. But they came to nothing. Not a good precedent for the present media furore.
Please donate to Westminster Confidential to allow me to continue my reporting and investigating.
Rishi Sunak gets a report on why women are still hugely disadvantaged in decision making across the world
Video from Downing Street where Jocelynne Scutt hands in the report on Women, Power and Decision Making to Number Ten
Here is a video taken yesterday when Jocelynne Scutt, a former Australian judge and anti discrimination commissioner and now an academic in the UK, handed in a report to the Prime minister detailing how women are still at a huge disadvantage to men in taking key political decisions in the UK and the rest of the world. She says the position of women is ” lamentable” in the UK
The report by the UK based Cedaw in Law, the organisation which is working with the Geneva based UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women and Girls (CEDAW). to put pressure on the government to implement in full the convention ratified by Margaret Thatcher in 1986.
The campaign covers everything from the 1950s born women battle for full restitution of their delayed pensions when the age went up form 60 to 66 to the dearth of women MPs and peers in Parliament.
At the moment we seem to be going backwards with Labour having an all white male prospective Parliamentary candidate list for five pending by-elections and former premiers Boris Johnson and Liz Truss putting forward an overwhelming number of men to be new peers in their resignation honours lists Even the Supreme Court which took on a big role under its former woman president, Brenda Hale now has 11 male judges and just a token woman judge.
As the report says : “…overlooking women’s right to equal participation in decision-making leads to an ignoring of, and ignorance about, women’s economic rights, health and wellbeing. Worse, it shows how the failure to ensure women’s participation in decision-making can lead to a wilful failure of government to consider the impact of policy decisions and law-making on women and women’s rights generally.“
We also discovered that the rules governing the delivery of petitions and reports to Downing Street had changed. Previously when Backto60 and trade unionists had delivered petitions to Downing Street it was allowed for people to make a short speech. Now under Rishi Sunak speeches that criticise the PM cannot be made from the steps of Downing Street. We did not discover this until both me and Jocelynne Scutt had made them.
Please donate to Westminster Confidential to allow me to continue my reporting on issues often ignored by mass media.
The Office for National Statistics – the independent official body which produces official figures for work and inflation in the UK – has come up with some alarming predictions for women born in the 1950s 1960s and 1970s.
They show that post the Covid pandemic there has been a big drop among women expecting to have enough money to retire and enjoy a life of leisure on their pensions. As a result a significant proportion of women now aged 50 to 65 are planning to stay in work – either with reduced hours or full time when they reach the retirement age of 66.
An organisation called Rest Less, which acts a community and an advocate for the over 50s, has analysed these figures and estimates that nearly one in two women pensioners now expect to have to continue working after retirement age. Either they will work their existing hours (13%) or work with reduced hours (31%).
Huge inequalities between men and women’s pensions
The main reasons for this is pensioner poverty among women and huge inequalities between men and women when it comes to their pension pots. Not only are women less likely to get full state pensions – often they have missed years – than men but there is a big discrepancy in private pensions. The ONS figures show while 78 per cent of men will fund their retirement with a private pension, only 68 per cent of women have one. And the inequality goes on and on. Some 47 per cent of men will fund their retirement through savings, compared to 40 per cent of women. And only seven per cent of men will rely on funds from their partner, while 18 per cent of women will rely on their partner to help fund their retirement.
These figures were compiled 10 months ago in September last year. I hear that the ONS does not plan to update them since the survey was a ” one off” following Covid. Curiously a lot of publicity was given to people dropping out of the workforce when they got to 50 – I can only think that the majority must have been men or women married to men with a very good private pension.
Stuart Lewis, Chief Executive of Rest Less, commented: “Years of gender based earnings disparity has resulted in a large pension savings gap between men and women, leaving many women in their 50s and 60s in real financial precarity. Nearly half of women aged 50-65 said they plan to continue working in some capacity after reaching state pension age – a number that is likely to have risen even further given the subsequent cost of living crisis.
…..“‘In the last recession of 2009, women could retire at 60 and receive the state pension; today it is 66. Many women aged 50-65 are stuck between a rock and a hard place – they struggle to find work due to age discrimination or a lack of flexible work opportunities but they are too young to claim their state pension putting them in a vulnerable financial position as they approach retirement. Whilst the state pension age for men and women may now be equal, this data shows that the retirement fortunes of men and women remain anything but equal.”
One person who is caught in this trap is Back to 60 campaigner Michaela Hawkins known as Mac to her friends
Michaela Hawkins
“.I was forced to stay in work longer than I wanted to or hoped for. “My husband is 10yrs older than myself so was relying on retiring at 60 so we could enjoy some quality time together. When SPA was raised this devastated our plans. It would have meant if I retired before receiving my SP we would have had to survive below the breadline. “Austerity along with the pandemic put untold pressure on both myself and husband. I was transferred to work in care home from Day services during Covid. As my husband was in high vulnerable category during this time you can imagine the stress this put on both ourselves. “Another reason why I felt stressed also is because as a woman gets older her body is not the same. The physical aspects of working in care sector takes its toll. When you come home from work you feel exhausted. But if you’re caring for loved one or helping out your children with childcare which I done both you have got no time for any sort of quality life.”
now tax allowance frozen
“Now the Tax allowance that’s been frozen. Now I’m retired I’ve been hit with a tax bill for over £1300 on top of cost of living crisis this is going to push many 50s women over the top. “
UPDATE : Since then there has been another demand for £1300.
Mac writes:
“I then received a letter saying I owe them a further £1,300. If this wasn’t payed then they would get in touch with debt collectors.
It took me 2 1/2 hrs to get through to tax office to query this. It couldn’t be done online. Although I disputed the amount I owe they were insistent that I did owe that amount. I was then put through to debt management. Who I got to say was accommodating. But the problem is when older people receive letter from HMRC saying they will bring in debt collectors or as people our age call them bailiffs they become confused and frightened. Then to be put on hold for that length of time is again frustrating to say the least. When you think how HMRC is quick to chase up pensioners who in good faith think they payed their fair taxes and are chased up and then you got those who knows how to play the system get away with it. It makes me so angry.”
Certainly Backto60, which campaigns for full restitution for all the 1950s women who lost up to six years of their pension, is inundated with stories of women living on the poverty line, unable to heat their homes properly or use their ovens to cook because they can’t afford the fuel bills.
Instead the government concentrates on getting everybody back to work rather than seeking to compensate people who have already worked for decades and now should be able to put their feet up if that’s what they want to do without fear of paying the bills.
Please donate to Westminster Confidential to allow me to continue my reporting.
Westminster Confidential 