At the end of July I published a scathing report from the House of Commons Justice Committee on the appalling state of the dysfunctional county court system. MPs were so appalled that they demanded a root and branch inquiry into the system to address its myriad problems – huge waiting times to hear cases, court buildings infested by rats, lack of disabled access and a chaotic and incompatible digital system to handle cases. You can read it again here .
Now we have the ministerial response. And what a tepid, pathetic and apology for an answer it is from Sarah Sackman KC. It even incorporates a potential ” pork barrel” issue with somehow one of the few courts now undergoing modernisation is in her own Finchley and Golders Green constituency in North London.
She rejects the main finding of the committee – the call for the inquiry to deal with the problem.
She said: “Rather than focusing on a root and branch review of the County Court, the Government is keen to focus on taking tangible and practical steps to improve the operation of the County CShe rejects the main finding of the committee – the call for the inquiry to deal with the problem.
She said: “Rather than focusing on a root and branch review of the County Court, the Government is keen to focus on taking tangible and practical steps to improve the operation of the County Court – which will benefit everyday users – without further delay. We are already seeing these measures bear fruit with improvements to the timeliness of claims that got to trial, improving call waiting times, growth in small claims mediation and further improvement to case management and file transfer systems.”
Her so called improvements include a reduction in waiting times for Small Claims cases from 50.5 weeks a year go to an amazing 49.2 weeks up to July. A fantastic reduction of of 1.3 weeks – I am sure she being cheered to the rafters for that. While those waiting longer face a 72.4 week delay compared to 79 weeks a year ago. I am sure they appreciate that.
Meanwhile many litigants are facing wasted costs for travel, legal fees and subsistence to attend hearings that are ” overlisted ” or as the result of poor management of the courts and MPs thought they should be compensated. But for Sarah Sackman ” over listing ” is fine and she rejected any money to reimburse claimants.
Probably the most interesting revelation is the paucity of the programme to modernise the courts to bring them up to 21st century standards. Only three courts are currently being modernised- Norwich, Taunton and Barnet and there are plans for Reading and Blackpool.
The Barnet court project got funding in October 2024 – three months after Sarah Sackman had been appointed solicitor general and two months after she became justice minister. I may be being unfair to her but I do find it curious that of all the courts to get modernise first is in her constituency.
Barnet County Court, Regents Park Road, Finchley
When you compare this with the long list in the justice committee ‘of courts that don’t even provide wheelchair access – only Taunton is being modernised. So for disabled people there is no hope of admission to Mansfield County Court; Brentford County Court; Darlington County Court ;Edmonton County Court; Hertford County Court and Lewes Combined Court Centre to name a few.
She does accept a number of reforms to improve digital communication in county courts but again I wonder if these will just add to the different schemes already in operation. On litigants in person, she accepted that there should be more granular data on their cases and also that guidance for litigants should be improved . But I wonder how far this will go given the heavy criticism from MPs on how difficult it is for litigants in person to understand procedure.
Frankly this is a disappointing response from the new Labour government to tackle the enormous problems in the court service and Sarah Sackman as a KC should be well aware of this. But it seems to reflect the general public mood that Labour is failing to make an impact.
Pat McFadden, poses for a photograph following his appointment to Cabinet by Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer in 10 Downing Street. Picture by Lauren Hurley / No 10 Downing Street
The 18 year old research report that derailed work and pension secretary Pat Mc Fadden and forced him to review his decision to pay nothing in compensation to 3.6 million 50s born women is a comprehensive and damning document. No wonder he didn’t go into details in his Parliamentary statement this week on what the Labour government then did not do to inform the women and the first cohort of men who faced a rise in the pension age.
The key finding by researchers on the exercise of sending 16 million letters with automatic pension forecasts was that it was a “ systematic failure to reach the target populations most in need of provision.”
The research is very thorough. It took over a year to do it. It involved covering 16 million letters. Researchers interviewed 11,690 people. It involved both the women in the target 50-59 age group and men aged 59-64. ( 2007 was the year it was revealed that both men and women faced the pension age going up to 66). But it also involved men and women aged 20-49 to see if they were aware of the pension changes.
The first fact discovered was that out of the 16 million letters sent out, staggeringly 11 million went unread.
The report said The APF ( automatic pension forecast) was least effective among those who most needed it:
Those with no pension knowledge: 16% readership
Those without pension provision: 25% readership
Younger people: 20-24% readership
Lower socioeconomic groups: 30% readership
This represents a systematic failure to reach the target populations most in need of intervention.
All the letters did was reinforce people better off people’s decision to take early action to safeguard themselves.
It said This suggests the APF largely reached people who would have acted anyway, providing little marginal benefit.
There was also a Self-Selection Bias.
Those who read the APF were systematically different:
64% already had basic/good pension knowledge
33% already had pension provision
Higher income and socioeconomic status
The APF appears to have reinforced existing advantages rather than closing gaps.
It concluded:” “This research provides rigorous evidence that mass information provision, while well-intentioned, has minimal impact on pension knowledge or retirement planning behaviour. The APF initiative reached 16 million people but meaningfully engaged only about 5 million, with measurable behavioural impact likely affecting fewer than 1-2 million.
It lays down three fundamental truths.
Information Is Not Enough Knowledge deficits are not the primary barrier to retirement planning. The research shows that those with the greatest information needs were least likely to engage with information provided.
Existing Advantages Compound The APF was most effective among those who already had pension knowledge, existing provision, higher incomes, and greater financial capability—reinforcing rather than reducing pension inequality.
Behaviour Change Requires Architecture, Not Just Information The minimal difference between APF and control groups demonstrates that passive information provision cannot drive behaviour change for complex, long-term decisions like retirement plan.
The report did tell ministers what they should do and why it was needed – that included specifically targeting the groups who did not respond in the future and running a systematic campaign to raise awareness of the change. As the Parliamentary Ombudsman found the result was maladministration.
DWP in ministerial flux
The ministry at the time was in flux. The year 2007 saw Peter Hain replaced by John Hutton – now both peers – as work and pension secretaries. The minister responsible for pensions changed as well from Mike O’Brien ( long left Parliament and working as a lawyer) and Dame Rosie Winterton.
There was zilch coverage in the media about its findings – the Iraq War was raging at the time – and it is not clear whether the report was kept for internal use anyway.
What will the impact be? First Pat McFadden says the review would not necessarily lead to the government paying out compensation. Secondly it could affect the judicial review brought by WASPI on the failure to act on the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s report and pay out compensation, as he said he had informed the high court about his decision to review the issue.
This could torpedo the hearing due on December 9 because judges may not want to hear the case if the minister says he is reviewing the situation.
As I have stated many times this would not have happened as CedawinLaw , the other main group campaigning for restitution for women, has said if they had applied instead for mediation and a court ruling to enforce it. But sadly WASPI has always refused to work with other groups wanting to create an impression in the media that they are the only people concerned about the issue.
Also the issue of past discrimination against these women as well as maladministration could have been included in the case. But Waspi do not seem to be bothered about this.
Not so transparent McFadden
There is one other issue to raise. Pat McFadden made a big issue of being transparent in his statement. But in fact he made it difficult for journalists to access this report. Normally when a minister makes a statement – and it will the case in the Budget – all the papers are available in the Vote Office to lobby journalists. In this case this paper was only available in the House of Commons library which can only be accessed by MPs. I would like to thank the anonymous MP who got me a copy.
Since then the library have allowed the report to be available to the public. The link is here.
A stormy tribunal case around Bradford City Hall. An AI generated image.
The Employment Tribunal system is being dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century yet still fails to deliver on open justice or provide what should be a basic expectation: a recording or transcript of public proceedings. Many claimants navigating the painfully slow-moving appeals process cannot obtain recordings because their original hearings predate the introduction of the recording system. The only alternative—the judge’s notes—will never be released, according to the Judicial Conduct Investigation Office.
Labour MP Anna Dixon recently raised this as a serious issue again at a Public Accounts Committee meeting in Parliament. Officials were unable to ,provide an answer.
Now a new problem has emerged: corrupted recordings. This latest case involves a 2024 hearing at Leeds Employment Tribunal between former Bradford Council employee Noreen Taylor and the authority, presided over by Judge Neil Maidment. Taylor had been employed as a contracted employment hub coach in the Children’s services Skills House team
Judge Maidment dismissed Taylor’s case, where she had raised serious concerns including safeguarding failures affecting children, notably by one staff member; data protection breaches involving children; misuse of European funds and recruitment irregularities. The recruitment irregularities emerged after evidence and were accepted by the respondents. Applicants were encouraged to apply for two jobs – a business manager and programme services manager – that had already been filled a month earlier.
Taylor said she had suffered years of detrimental treatment by senior staff there, many of whom have now left. But it was not until the first day of a 14 day trial that the council accepted 9 out of 13 protested disclosures.
Astonishingly, when she stated her lawful right to contact her MP and report these issues to police, she was warned against doing so.
Judge described claimants racism fears as ” jovial fun”
Taylor, who is from an ethnic minority background, was singled out in a business meeting with her white British colleagues. During the meeting, she was repeatedly referred to as “your inner chimp, Noreen your chimp,” and everyone laughed—except Taylor. She later confirmed via texts and phone calls with her colleagues that she had been visibly upset and distressed by these comments. The judge did not agree and described it as ” jovial fun”.
This incident occurred after Taylor had raised whistleblowing concerns, in what appeared to be an attempt to shut her down. The business manager, who had been involved in recruitment irregularities, was supported by the Assistant Director of Children’s Services. This detrimental racial treatment of Taylor continued for months, ultimately affecting her health. The manager later explained in an internal meeting that his reference to The Chimp Paradox was intended to refer to a behaviorial psychology book, not as a racist remark aimed at Taylor
Taylor, who was experiencing disability-related health issues, due to the onslaught of bullying and harassment within Children’s services was ultimately dismissed on ill health capability grounds, this was after she was kept as a NIL pay employee for years until the council covered up and prevaricated, intimidated, harassed and even trespassed into her house shown on CCTV and to the ET Judges at Leeds.
The judge ruled that her dismissal was due to ill health, and not her whistleblowing activity. Despite her protected disclosures being linked to a long list of detriments, she was subject to exclusion, harassment, gas lighting when she raised concerns. She was removed from the business team and her IT access and her work email address was stopped.
She was a litigant in person pitched against the fourth largest local authority who had the money and access to barristers to fight her. It took the authority from late 2020 until the 14 day trial in April 2024 to accept any of her protective disclosures. But she was determined to continue for the sake of getting vulnerable children justice.
During the preliminary hearings, she says one of the judges referred to the head of legal team on first name terms and did not recuse himself. Later it was found out the judge was employed by the council as a consultant. This judge threatened to strike out all her whistleblowing claims at the request of the council’s lawyers but did not succeed. She had been unable to get the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office to investigate her complaint, because it came too late as she had only three months to complain.
In May 2024 Taylor says the judge appeared to do a U turn by portraying her in a negative way after accepting at a preliminary hearing there was a case to answer particularly over the safeguarding issues.
Transcripts of hearing withheld for 2 years
Taylor immediately decided to appeal but encountered months of obstruction and delays in obtaining the hearing transcript. She needed the transcript to challenge evidence given by a staff member (and to lodge a complaint about the conduct of the judge) Even after Conservative MP Robbie Moore who represents Keighley and Ilkley became involved the claimants request for a transcript was sent again in December 2024 but clerks gave varying excuses making each and every one more suspect, yet from May 2024 to end of 2025 it will be almost 2 years the transcript has been withheld by Leeds ET by current Regional Judge D N Jones.
For a July Employment Appeal Tribunal hearing, she enlisted veteran whistleblower Alison McDermott to act as a McKenzie friend.
At the Rule 3.10 hearing—which determines whether an appeal can proceed—Taylor explained her inability to obtain the transcript. The EAT judge was sympathetic, telling her: “I don’t have the power to order the lower courts to produce it because it’s an administrative matter, but I can direct a letter to the acting regional judge explaining you have an appeal and that the transcript is required. I am content if you’re applying to adjourn today’s hearing until the trial transcript is provided.”
Taylor has now been informed she cannot have the transcript because the recording SENT BY LEEDS ET is too damaged. Acolad, which processes court recordings, told her: “Unfortunately, our back office advised the disc was too damaged to extract any information as it wasn’t possible to upload the audio from the disc to the system.”Acolad have emailed and written to Leeds ET on numerous occasions and have been ignored for months since July 2024.
Without the transcript, Taylor cannot proceed with her appeal application. This extraordinary situation points to either gross incompetence or negligence at Leeds Employment Tribunal—another example of a broken system. Staff should know whether a recording is functioning properly. Taylor says: “It is outrageous that a whistleblower who raised serious concerns about child safeguarding can be denied my right to appeal because the tribunal failed in its basic duty to maintain a proper record of proceedings. This isn’t just administrative failure—it’s a perversion of justice that makes a mockery of the entire tribunal system.
How can justice be seen to be done when there is no verifiable record of what was said? This goes to the heart of the rule of law and the principle that courts must be accountable and transparent.”
But for the whistleblower it is another dead end and an impediment to get any justice.
Meanwhile the justice department continues to obfuscate over the provision of court records to claimants.
On 20 March 2025, Anna Dixon MP asked the Ministry of Justice two questions at the Public Accounts Committee. Simple questions. Pre-notified questions.
“How can people receive a fair trial if a record of proceedings is not made available to them?”
“How can judges block access to those records when they themselves are being accused of misconduct?”
Dr Jo Farrar, the Permanent Secretary, talked about “court productivity.” Gemma Hewison, Director General, said: “We’ll have to write to the Committee.”
They couldn’t answer. Because the answer is indefensible.
Posted on by davidhencke Last year I reported on the tragic death of talented 25 year old Gaia Young 17 hours after she was admitted to University College Hospital with severe headaches. Her mother Lady Dorit Young was subject to an entirely unsatisfactory and unsympathetic coroner’s inquest by Mary Hassell which let the hospital off the hook saying the cause of death was unknown. You can read my original blog here.
The coroner blocked Lady’s Young’s attempt to get independent evidence from a neurologist but since then she has managed to get an independent neuro-radiologist and neurologist’s report and UCLH have opened a further review into her tragic death.
The protest vigil on September 15 was sparked by the findings of the neuro radiologist who examined the CT scans of Gaia’s brain. It showed quite clearly even to a lay person, according to Dorit ,that the first scan taken and I quote ” there is a gross cerebral and cerebellar swelling. There is effacement meaning ( ” literally meaning ‘ rubbed out’: these fluid spaces should be visible but cannot be seen).”
This is the opposite to the consultant radiologist who examined Gaia’s scan who said: “The ventricles and basal cisterns are patent…Impression No acute intracranial finding.”
Gaia Young
The independent consultant’s diagnosis was confirmed by Dr Charles House, the medical director, when he met Dorit and compared Gaia’s scan with a normal brain scan.
The consultant radiologist who examined this first scan was Dr Ayman Mahfouz, who was on duty at UCLH at the time Gaia was admitted. Dr Mahfouz, has a private practice in Harley Street.
His entry on the private practice site says he has specialist expertise in breast, gynaecology and general imaging.
He undertakes all aspects of breast imaging including mammographic (plain, contrast enhanced and 3D), Ultrasound, MRI and CT diagnostics. He performs all ultrasound and stereotactic breast related procedures including vacuum excision.
Dr. Ayman Mahfouz is a designated appraiser for doctors at UCLH and has previously been elected as a regional representative for doctors in training at the Royal College of Radiologists. At the time of Gaia’s admission he held the role as Emergency Imaging Lead for UCLH.
Gaia’s mother would like to contact him about the scans but so far he has not responded. She does not know what pressure he might have been under at the time or how much time he took to examine the scan. I did ask UCLH about whether he wanted to say anything about this but there was no response to my question.
UCLH did issue a response about the review into Gaia’s death.
A UCLH spokesperson said:
“We met with Lady Young and apologised that Gaia’s care fell below the high standards we strive to provide. We sympathise greatly that the cause of her beloved daughter’s death four years ago is still unknown.
“We are committed to learning from external opinion and scrutiny and have commissioned a range of independent experts to explore further the circumstances surrounding Gaia’s death. We agreed with Lady Young the scope of the reviews and the experts who will undertake them.
“We await the outcomes of all the external reviews to understand if further lessons can be learned and acted upon.”
Dorit’s vigil last month caused more than a flutter on Harley Street. The clinic at 99 Harley Street called the police and also alerted its own security guards. When the one man patrol car turned up with flashing blue lights the policeman turned out to be incredibly polite and said no-one was breaking the law so long as the entrance to the premises and pavement was not blocked.
The friendly security guards curious about the case
Then two security guards turned up, saying they had been informed by a member of the public that large numbers of people were demonstrating there. It turned out to be just three people and they were remarkably friendly and polite when they heard about the circumstances. They didn’t mind having their pictures taken.
The one person who didn’t turn up was the doctor and one of his private practice colleagues politely remonstrated with us that this was not the right way to do things and Dorit should arrange a meeting with the hospital. It was pointed out to him she had been reprimanded by the Trust on various occasions for trying to contact clinicians having cared for Gaia. She never received an answer. The Trust never offered a meeting with any of these doctors.
Gaia’s case has been taken up by an Islington councillor, Dr Hannah McHugh. She wrote a strongly worded opinion piece for her local paper, The Islington Tribune. You can read ithere.
She says:” As an Islington councillor, I’ve supported Lady Young in this painful journey. It has revealed something of concern to us all: when things go wrong in our healthcare system, the path to truth is too often long, difficult, and unjust. Tragedies become injustices.”
Slowly but surely the facts about Gaia’s death are coming to light. But so far it has taken four years to achieve with no help from coroner Mary Hassell.
This to me is a general problem across the NHS. Rather than acknowledge to patient’s relatives that mistakes have been made, trust managers initially go on the defensive and are prone to cover up what went wrong and who was responsible. It is only people with guts and determination like Dorit who are prepared to fight for years until they get answers that the true facts start to come to light.
UPDATE; The ex coroner and Lady Dorit Young held a second vigil at a conference organised by the Royal College of Radiologists in London this month to bring it home to the profession the need for the very careful reading of scans by radiologists. Here is a picture of their vigil accompanied by a police officer.
Dorit Young and an ex coroner on a vigil in Harley Street.
Last year I reported on the tragic death of talented 25 year old Gaia Young 17 hours after she was admitted to University College Hospital with severe headaches. Her mother Lady Dorit Young was subject to an entirely unsatisfactory and unsympathetic coroner’s inquest by Mary Hassell which let the hospital off the hook saying the cause of death was unknown. You can read my original blog here.
The coroner blocked Lady’s Young’s attempt to get independent evidence from a neurologist but since then she has managed to get an independent neuro-radiologist and neurologist’s report and UCLH have opened a further review into her tragic death.
The protest vigil on September 15 was sparked by the findings of the neuro radiologist who examined the CT scans of Gaia’s brain. It showed quite clearly even to a lay person, according to Dorit ,that the first scan taken and I quote ” there is a gross cerebral and cerebellar swelling. There is effacement meaning ( ” literally meaning ‘ rubbed out’: these fluid spaces should be visible but cannot be seen).”
Gaia Young
This is the opposite to the consultant radiologist who examined Gaia’s scan who said: “The ventricles and basal cisterns are patent…Impression No acute intracranial finding.”
The independent consultant’s diagnosis was confirmed by Dr Charles House, the medical director, when he met Dorit and compared Gaia’s scan with a normal brain scan.
The consultant radiologist who examined this first scan was Dr Ayman Mahfouz, who was on duty at UCLH at the time Gaia was admitted. Dr Mahfouz, has a private practice in Harley Street.
His entry on the private practice site says he has specialist expertise in breast, gynaecology and general imaging.
He undertakes all aspects of breast imaging including mammographic (plain, contrast enhanced and 3D), Ultrasound, MRI and CT diagnostics. He performs all ultrasound and stereotactic breast related procedures including vacuum excision.
Dr. Ayman Mahfouz is a designated appraiser for doctors at UCLH and has previously been elected as a regional representative for doctors in training at the Royal College of Radiologists. At the time of Gaia’s admission he held the role as Emergency Imaging Lead for UCLH.
Gaia’s mother would like to contact him about the scans but so far he has not responded. She does not know what pressure he might have been under at the time or how much time he took to examine the scan. I did ask UCLH about whether he wanted to say anything about this but there was no response to my question.
UCLH did issue a response about the review into Gaia’s death.
A UCLH spokesperson said:
“We met with Lady Young and apologised that Gaia’s care fell below the high standards we strive to provide. We sympathise greatly that the cause of her beloved daughter’s death four years ago is still unknown.
“We are committed to learning from external opinion and scrutiny and have commissioned a range of independent experts to explore further the circumstances surrounding Gaia’s death. We agreed with Lady Young the scope of the reviews and the experts who will undertake them.
“We await the outcomes of all the external reviews to understand if further lessons can be learned and acted upon.”
Dorit’s vigil last month caused more than a flutter on Harley Street. The clinic at 99 Harley Street called the police and also alerted its own security guards. When the one man patrol car turned up with flashing blue lights the policeman turned out to be incredibly polite and said no-one was breaking the law so long as the entrance to the premises and pavement was not blocked.
The friendly security guards curious about the case
Then two security guards turned up, saying they had been informed by a member of the public that large numbers of people were demonstrating there. It turned out to be just three people and they were remarkably friendly and polite when they heard about the circumstances. They didn’t mind having their pictures taken.
The one person who didn’t turn up was the doctor and one of his private practice colleagues politely remonstrated with us that this was not the right way to do things and Dorit should arrange a meeting with the hospital. It was pointed out to him she had been reprimanded by the Trust on various occasions for trying to contact clinicians having cared for Gaia. She never received an answer. The Trust never offered a meeting with any of these doctors.
Gaia’s case has been taken up by an Islington councillor, Dr Hannah McHugh. She wrote a strongly worded opinion piece for her local paper, The Islington Tribune. You can read ithere.
She says:” As an Islington councillor, I’ve supported Lady Young in this painful journey. It has revealed something of concern to us all: when things go wrong in our healthcare system, the path to truth is too often long, difficult, and unjust. Tragedies become injustices.”
Slowly but surely the facts about Gaia’s death are coming to light. But so far it has taken four years to achieve with no help from coroner Mary Hassell.
This to me is a general problem across the NHS. Rather than acknowledge to patient’s relatives that mistakes have been made, trust managers initially go on the defensive and are prone to cover up what went wrong and who was responsible. It is only people with guts and determination like Dorit who are prepared to fight for years until they get answers that the true facts start to come to light.
Two weeks ago I published a critical examination of how NHS Resolution’s Practitioner Performance Advice service contributed to the demise of whistleblower doctors revealing patient safety issues who stand to lose in 97 per cent of cases when they come before an employment tribunal.
Ealing Hospital Pic credit:BBC
Since publication a number of doctors and patients have contacted me about their experiences with NHS Resolution and it makes disturbing reading. This is one of the cases.
One of the key points in the previous blog is that NHS Resolution does not require the health trust to inform a doctor when it has received advice from NHSR on what action to take against a doctor accused by the trust. So the doctor is completely ignorant that this has happened.
The paragraph in their letter, which is similar in other cases involving doctors, reads: “We encourage transparency in the management of cases and recommend that practitioners should be informed when their case has been discussed with us. I am happy for you to share this letter with the practitioner unless you consider it inappropriate to do so. Moreover, the practitioner is also welcome to contact us for a confidential discussion regarding their case.”
The London and North West University NHS Trust
I am not naming the doctor – an obstetrics and gynaecology consultant – as there will be an employment tribunal in 2027 – six years after the incident – but I am naming the trust, the London North West University NHS Trust- and the manager involved Dr Martin Kuper, then its chief medical officer – as events following this case were in the public domain.
A very tragic story
The incident that caused the referral to NHS Resolution is a very tragic story. An Afghan woman came to the hospital for a myomectomy – a surgical procedure to take out fibroids ( small lumps) from the uterus.
The operation can be performed by either an incision into the abdomen or key hole surgery. The woman chose to have keyhole surgery as it is less invasive. The doctor performed the operation with an anaesthetist putting her to sleep. Unfortunately during the operation she arrested, bled heavily and died.
The doctor was blamed by the trust for acting ” seriously below the accepted standard” despite PM Examination clearly reported absence of any injuries to major arteries and veins. According to the doctor what NHSR was not told that the delay in helping the patient was caused by the delay in transfusing blood products especially platelets as Ealing theatres did not stock any Emergency Platelets like Northwick Park theatres when the incident took place. The surgeon used to operate at Northwick Park and he was asked to move his complex surgeries to Ealing Hospital because he had a number of cases waiting more than two years. The day prior to index surgery the surgeon wrote to Trust management explaining that his cases were complex and should be operated upon at Northwick Park and not at Ealing theatres.
Worse the record of the conversation involving Dr Kuper in a letter from NHSR says the doctor was accused of tampering with the electronic record of the incident and omitted to tell NHSR that the doctor was a whistleblower who had raised serious questions about maternity and gynaecology services by that hospital which had not pleased the management.
The doctor says this account is distorted. He had made an electronic draft entry into the record at 07:30, then made few linguistic corrections to finalise the draft and few hours later at 11:45 he submitted his statement. All these entries and the changes made to the draft are available should you press the Audit Tap of the software used at any time.
As for his concerns about maternity services, it was confirmed on the following month when the Care Quality Commission inspected the hospital and ruled the service as ” inadequate.”
The letter showed NHSR had been told by MD (Chief Medical Officer) that there were ” no other concerns in relation to this surgeon of a clinical nature brought to his attention in the last two years”, i.e, since he joined the Trust.
The letter from NHSR – based on Dr Kuper’s submission- advised as the doctor went off sick following the incident that the doctor should be referred to the Occupational Health service for possible mental and physical health problems. The surgeon also suffered series of sanctions upon his practice including his maternity work despite no concerns were raised at any stages in relation to his maternity work. On the contrary, he was one of the two consultants appointed to the Trust in 2006 to turn the maternity services around following CQC imposing measures on the maternity unit being ranked in 2005.
Trust was selective and biased during collecting and while considering various witnesses statements aiming at victimising the surgeon. The surgeon and all gynaecologist involved were excluded from the initial stages to set him up for the next step. He was also subjected to an internal special investigation taken through Maintaining High Professional Standards procedure which amounts to an internal disciplinary procedure. Trust was selective
None of this advice was conveyed to the doctor and the trust ignored the suggestion from NHSR that they should be open and transparent about the letter.
The letter was not sent to the doctor in a timely manner prior to start of MHPS investigation and he had to submit a subject access at some point, which cannot be refused, to obtain all the correspondences between Trust and NHSR.
There had been a coroner’s hearing under senior coroner Lydia Brown in which he was blamed for the death and the coroner blocked his barrister from pursuing questions about the action taken or not taken by the anaesthetist especially the delay in transfusing coagulation factors and the trust emphasised he had been reported to the General Medical Council for Fitness to practice investigation to protect patients and public.
However, this was not enough for the trust which made it impossible for him to get a job elsewhere by requesting NHSR to issue HPAN against his practice advising other potential employers not to appoint him advising responsible officers in other organisations to contact Dr Kuper’s successor Dr Johnathon Baker, the current CMO). By issuing the Notice the NHSR was given Trust another opportunity to wreck the surgeon career. This HPAN notice will be kept at NHSR records for thirty years before it can be destroyed.
Dr Baker raised numerous concerns regarding the Surgeon practice following carrying out an unjustifiable look back investigation into his unblemished practice, ending up referring a total of 23 cases to GMC but did not mention at any stage that the doctor raised patients’ safety concerns.
Helen Vernon, chief executive NHS Resolution
But when the report came back from the GMC he was completely exonerated of any clinical allegations in relation to the index case or any of the other 22 cases.
The surgeon complained to the NHSR in November 2023. The reply from Helen Vernon, the chief executive a month later is very revealing.
First the adviser was on prolonged sick leave and was unable to be involved. But her reply raises points on the role of the NHSR which show how weak it is.
She says: “As the Advice Service is not a decision-making body, any decisions regarding the management of a practitioner must rest solely with their employer/contracting body. Whilst the employer/contracting body may have regard to any advice provided by the Advice Service, having considered and weighed up all the relevant information available, they may take a view which differs from the opinion expressed by the Advice team.”
It was also clear that NHSR did not know he was a whistleblower, and were not certain whether it was aware of the bad CQC report on maternity care at the hospital. An unsatisfactory reply. altogether.
There is a postscript about the senior manager involved in this case – Dr Martin Kuper. He went on to become chief executive of the prestigious Moorfield Eye Hospital NHS Trust.
Martin Kuper
This year GB News reported that no fewer than 80 consultants had sent a letter to the board of the hospital complaining it had a culture of bullying, financial mismanagement and lack of transparency.
The report is here. As a result both the chair and the chief executive resigned. The trust in a statement said “Martin Kuper has taken the decision to resign from his position as chief executive of Moorfields and will formally leave the organisation.” There was very little about his achievements while he was there and at the moment does not appear to have got another job in the NHS.
Stormy scene around tilted scales of justice as judges avoid complaints
Remember the ten brave women I wrote about who are challenging the bullying behaviour of Employment Judge Philip Lancaster? See my blog here. The ones the justice system refused to investigate despite overwhelming evidence?
They’re now in a race against time – and the Judicial Conduct Information Office is playing its oldest trick: delay, delay, delay until they run out of money or miss their deadline.
Here’s what’s happening:
The women issued their Letter Before Action to the Judicial Conduct Investigation Office (JCIO) in September. The JCIO’s deadline to respond under the pre-action protocol was 8 October. They missed it. The women waited another week. They missed that too.
Now the JCIO says they won’t respond until 20 October – leaving barely two weeks before the women must file at court in early November or lose their right to bring these proceedings forever.
Classic establishment tactics. Unlimited taxpayer funding and government lawyers versus women running on crowdfunding and determination.
But here’s why this matters more than ever:
In September 2025, Baroness Harriet Harman KC published a damning report on judicial misconduct. Her conclusions are devastating:
“The problem is the culture of impunity for those at the top who commit misconduct. Those in powerful positions whether at the Bar or in the judiciary who choose to engage in bullying, harassment or sexual harassment can be pretty confident that nothing will be done about it. And that is what must change.”
She identified a “cohort of untouchables” amongst the judiciary and “particular judges who are widely known for making everyone’s lives a misery.”
This is EXACTLY what these women are fighting to expose.
The women need £40,000 total to see this through
They’ve raised £17,335 so far – incredible progress from 472 supporters. But they need £40,000 in total to get this case into court and finish what they’ve started.
Their legal team of outstanding women lawyers at Deighton Pierce Glynn has already slashed fees dramatically. But even at reduced rates, taking on the government is expensive.
What’s at stake:
35,000+ employment tribunal users face these tribunals every year
If this judicial review succeeds, the JCIO will be forced to properly investigate judicial misconduct
Judges who egregiously abuse their power and block the release of the court record will finally face consequences
Whistleblowers will be better protected
This isn’t about these women and whistleblowers getting compensation – their chance at justice has been lost forever. If they win the judicial reivew there won’t be any compensation – just the knowledge that they exposed a corrupt complaint system. And showing judges that they are not above the law.
Every pound counts. They cannot let the judicial establishment win by simply outlasting them financially. Not when they’re this close.
Please help them as they have shown remarkable courage and integrity to do this for the greater good but they can’t do it without further financial help.
Why do 97 per cent of whistleblowers fail to win their cases in employment tribunals? Why are they sacked – not for their disclosures of patient safety which is illegal – but under the nebulous title – some other substantial reason (SOSR)? This could be allegations of bullying or saying they cannot get on with colleagues.
But how does a trust gather such information to discredit a doctor? What I have discovered is that NHS trust managers can get a free advice service or an endorsement for actions considered by managers against a Whistleblower from NHS Resolution, an arms length quango from the Department for Health and Social Care.
This ” phone a friend” service would allow the manager to set up a case file under Practitioner Performance Advice without the doctor even knowing this has happened. Effectively the evidence will be later presented at an employment tribunal by highly skilled and expensive lawyers hired by the trust to discredit the unfortunate doctor.
This process has no transparency, no verification with the doctor and there are no public records of what happens in these cases.
The only information that there is such a process is in the annual reports and accounts of NHS Resolution and even that is very sparse.
While there are reams of statistics about the organisation’s public facing work dealing with patients complaints about clinical and non clinical issues which it tries to resolve without going to expensive legal action, the role of practitioner performance advice service gets very little mention.
In the 2024-25 annual report it acknowledges “NHS Resolution’s Practitioner Performance Advice service delivers expert advice, support and interventions on the fair management of concerns about the performance of doctors, dentists and pharmacists.”
How do they judge performance having branded the therapist with a “behaviour” issue at the outset even with untrue claims or without awareness of risks to patients? Only when the formal referral actioned the therapist or doctors may get an opportunity to represent their side of the story BUT if the behaviour analyse are not even clinicians, how would they understand what culture therapist or doctor has been working in.
The PPA service also claims to be very efficient. It says 90% of advice and other case interventions delivered within target timeframe – this was achieved in 2024/25 NHS Resolution annual report and accounts 2024 to 2025 90% of all exclusions/suspensions critically reviewed (where due) – this was within tolerance at 82%, with 155 of 189 exclusions/suspensions reviewed within required timescales.
What it does reveal is that trusts searching to use its services are booming.
The report says: “The service received 1,420 new and reopened requests for advice from healthcare organisations with concerns about the practice of individual practitioners as well as services in 2024/25, representing a 24% increase compared to 2023/24.The open caseload at the end of the financial year stood at 1,149, a 15% increase when compared with the end of 2023/24 .”
It adds: “Requests for assessment and remediation services remained at a high level in 2024/25, with 50 requests for professional support and remediation action plans, 44 requests for behavioural assessments, six requests for clinical performance assessments and four requests for team reviews.”
And it says:” NHS Resolution delivered OARs ( Organised Activity Reports) to 18 secondary care trusts in England, offering follow-up consultations with a Performance Practitioner Advice adviser to each, and finalized reports for primary care trusts, mental health trusts and trusts in Wales and Northern Ireland for delivery in 2025/26″.
Helen Vernon, CEO of NHS Resolution
On what grounds has this service without transparency or regulation of its advisors been set up and run?Sally Cheshire Chair of the NHSR , and Helen Vernon,CEO, need to explain this.
The only other references are likely to lead to hollow laughs from some of the whistleblowers who lost their jobs at trusts – notably Martyn Pitman at Hampshire Hospitals NHS Trust and Usha Prasad at the now St Georges and Epsom and St Helier Hospitals Trust.
It claims that the whole process is to “develop Compassionate Conversations in relation to performance conversations to support kindness and compassion within the NHS .”
It goes on to say: the aim of the advice includes” Fostering just and learning cultures rather than punitive approaches” and” Ensuring fairness and proportionality in managing performance concerns.”
If there is a lack of transparency how can it be justified as a just culture suitable for learning?
Having covered employment tribunals now in NHS sacking cases the last thing I have seen is any compassionate conversation. Instead the trusts are keen to employ numerous highly paid lawyers to terrify and frighten professional doctors reducing in some cases people to tears – at enormous cost to the taxpayer who foots the bill for their salaries.
So if NHS Resolution is boasting about saving lawyer’s fees in patient complaint cases, it is also responsible for increasing lawyer’s fees – often running to hundreds of thousands of pounds – by advising trusts on how to ruin doctors’ careers when all they have raised is patient safety problems.
If you take this process alongside my previous blog about the role of the General Medical Council and its relationship with the responsible medical officer in the trust- it is no wonder that whistleblowers have little chance of success in the NHS. I now know of senior doctors who are NOT going to report patient safety issues because they fear it will be the end of their careers if they do.
NHSR’s PPA is yet another tool like the unregulated triage by the GMC that can be exploited to bury serious concerns using public funding.
Judge Barry Clarke who is president of employment tribunals in England and Wales
The English and Welsh Employment Tribunal system is operating under an extraordinary contradiction that strikes at the heart of judicial accountability: judges accused of misconduct can legally withhold the only evidence that exists against them.
This isn’t a bureaucratic quirk. It’s a fundamental breach of justice that’s destroying lives and making a mockery of the complaints system.
The Case That Exposes Everything
Employment Judge Philip Lancaster faces multiple misconduct complaints from whistleblowers, including Sellafield Whistleblower, Alison McDermott, and many others. The evidence needed to investigate these complaints? The judge’s own handwritten notes from the hearings in question.
Here’s where it gets explosive: Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood has confirmed to MPs that where no audio recording exists, these judges’ notes constitute the official court record.
Yet Lancaster refuses to release the official court record. The very judicial notes that the Justice Secretary says are the official record. The only evidence that exists of what happened in his courtroom.
In other words, the judge accused of multiple breaches of misconduct and betraying his judicial oath has become the sole gatekeeper of the evidence against himself.
A System Designed to Block Scrutiny
Let’s be absolutely clear about what’s happening here. No other professional under investigation could do this:
Police officers can’t withhold bodycam footage when under investigation
Politicians can’t refuse to release official documents
Doctors can’t refuse to release patient notes
But Employment Tribunal judges can — and do — withhold their notes – the only record of proceedings, even when facing serious misconduct allegations and even though the Justice Secretary has categorically confirmed that the judicial notes are the official court record.
The President’s Defensive Wall
When I pressed Judge Barry Clarke, President of the Employment Tribunal, for answers to this blatant unfairness, the response was revealing. I asked direct questions:
Does he accept that judges’ notes are the official record, as stated by the Justice Secretary?
If yes, what legal authority allows Lancaster to withhold them?
If no, who can intervene?
Instead of answers, I received pages of case law about judicial independence — a concept that was never meant to shield judges from accountability when facing misconduct investigations. Clarke’s office has chosen to defend a practice that subverts open justice rather than confront a shocking flaw that undermines the entire tribunal system.
Clarke defended the practice as a matter of “judicial discretion.” But this is precisely the problem: access to the official court record should never be discretionary. It should be an absolute right. In every other court in the land, parties can obtain transcripts, recordings, or official records of proceedings. But in the Employment Tribunal, Clarke has normalised a system where individual judges become personal owners of public records, free to release or suppress them as they see fit. This isn’t about protecting judicial independence — it’s about placing judges above the law.
The fact that Clarke sees nothing wrong with a judge under investigation controlling access to evidence against himself reveals how deeply this corruption has infected the tribunal system. When the President himself cannot grasp that court records belong to the public, not to individual judges, we’re no longer talking about reform. We’re talking about a system that needs to be torn down and rebuilt from scratch.
“This Is Not Justice — It’s a Travesty”
For Alison McDermott, the Sellafield whistleblower, who is leading a judicial review against Employment Judge Lancaster, the situation is both personal and devastating:
“I was horrified to discover my hearing was not recorded. No audio, no video — nothing. Judge Lancaster, who is facing multiple charges of misconduct, is refusing to release the very evidence that could prove it. In any other profession, this would be seen as obstructing evidence. In the Employment Tribunal, they call it standard practice. We’re not asking for special treatment. We’re simply asking for the official court record of our own hearing. But in Britain’s tribunals, the accused judge gets to be the gatekeeper. When judges can keep secret notes, and then withhold those notes when under investigation, we don’t have a justice system. We have a closed shop where judges police themselves. .This is not justice. It is disgusting perversion of justice and a travesty that denies any possibility of a fair trial.”
The Deeper Rot
This scandal reveals three interconnected failures that should alarm anyone who believes in the rule of law:
First, many Employment Tribunals don’t record their proceedings. In an age where every high street shop has CCTV, our tribunals rely solely on judges’ handwritten notes — notes taken by people who receive no training in accurate record-keeping and face no monitoring of their note-taking abilities.
Second, these unverified notes become the official court record. Your career, your reputation, your access to justice — all hang on a judge’s personal scribbles. Yet you are denied access to them.
Third, when that judge faces investigation, they alone decide whether anyone can see those notes. The accused becomes the gate keeper of the very evidence needed to prove misconduct.
Why This Matters Beyond One Case
This isn’t simply about Judge Lancaster. It’s about a system that has abandoned its most basic principle: open justice. The latest annual report from the Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman – see here – show that there were 424 complaints against judges last financial year where people contacted the Ombudsman because they were dissatisfied. Of course only a few – 23 – were investigated – the vast majority being thrown out often because it breached the three month time limit for complaints to be heard.
Regional Judges and the President of the Employment Tribunal have also applied this three month deadline rigidly, striking out cases before their substance can even be tested. Campaigners say the effect is to silence victims and protect those in positions of power. And now Baroness Harriet Harman agrees.
Harriet Harman’s Independent Review of Bullying, Harassment and Sexual Harassment at the Bar [see here]was blunt about the flaws. In paragraph 34 she wrote: “There is no benefit in restricting complaints arbitrarily. Indeed, the only practical benefit it has is to protect those engaging in misconduct.” She added it was “surprising that the judiciary confirmed the reasonableness of this time limit after reviewing it as part of the consultation on judicial discipline in 2023.”
Courts must be open to scrutiny. Proceedings must be transparent. The court record. must be accessible. These aren’t optional extras — they’re the key foundations that separate justice from an abuse of arbitrary power.
The Question That Demands an Answer
Either the Justice Secretary is right that judges’ notes are the official court record — in which case Lancaster’s refusal to release them is a scandal that should trigger immediate intervention — or she has misled MPs about how the tribunal system actually works.
There is no third option.
The government cannot claim these notes are the official record while simultaneously allowing judges to treat them as private property, especially when facing misconduct investigations.
A System in Crisis
A tribunal system that allows judges to withhold evidence against themselves cannot command public confidence. A President who defends this practice rather than reforming it has failed in his duty. A Justice Secretary who knows this is happening but doesn’t act has abandoned her responsibility.
The principle is devastatingly simple: without access to the court record, there can be no proper appeals, no effective complaints process, and no real justice.
Until this changes, the Employment Tribunal will remain what it has become: a system where judges facing serious allegations can simply make the evidence disappear.
That’s not judicial independence. It’s judicial impunity.
And in a democracy that claims to value the rule of law, it’s completely unacceptable.
The full letter from his office is here if you want to read it.
Kevin O’Neill Marist college principal and paedophile Pic credit: Lancashire Evening Telegraph
Damian Murray tells Westminster Confidential about his long battle with the Roman Catholic charity which covered up child sex abuse for 11 years
This is a story of the concealment and denial of child sex abuse by a charismatic principal of a college and religious charity who escaped justice in his lifetime and the failure of many organisations, including the Charity Commission and the charity to do anything about it.
Father Kevin O’Neill, a Marist priest, was principal of the Roman Catholic St Mary’s College in Blackburn. It was closed down in 2022 with £8.2 million debts reportedly caused by falling student numbers. It had been propped up by the last Tory government with emergency funding since 2020.
He was principal of the college from 1978 to 1993 and worked in Blackburn since 1964. He was born in Barking, east London and attended the Roman Catholic St Mary’s College in Middlesbrough going on to a get a degree at Christ’s College, Cambridge.
Damian was a pupil at the school between 1970 and 1977 and only discovered years later when a former pupil Graham Caveney revealed in a memoir that he had been sexually assaulted by O’Neill when he was a pupil there. It was then he realised O’Neill, as he long suspected, had been trying to groom him. The book, The Boy with Perpetual Nervousness was reviewed in The Guardian in 2017. See here.
Unlike Graham Caveney he was never sexually assaulted. It was in 2017 -seven years ago – that he started putting in a complaint to the Charity Commission and the Department for Education only to discover that neither were keen to take action. That is what led him to complain via his MP to the Parliamentary Ombudsman who have been the only people to do something about it
His view of the process is scathing. “This tortuously extended process also uncovered to me the worryingly close personal and organisational relationships actively fostered and maintained between the UK Roman Catholic Church and both the DfE and the Commission. It has shown in my view the Commission in particular to be proudly unaccountable, intransigent, incompetent and completely unfit for purpose.”
The former St Mary’s College, Blackburn Pic credit: Lancashire Evening Telegraph
The cover up by the Marist priests is as bad as the actual child sexual abuse. When it was admitted in 1993 none of the governors of the school were apparently told and the principal was packed off to the United States on the grounds he was sick. When he died back in the UK in 2011 after getting dementia a celebratory mass was held at the school and the Lancashire Evening Telegraph is full of glowing tributes to him from former pupils with his nickname ” the Rev Kev” prominently mentioned. None of the pupils would have known about his dirty secret.
As bad as that the school in 2008 named a new £2.5 million arts centre in his honour – the O’Neill Academy for Performing Arts – which is now in use as a community venue.
And as late as 2024 the accounts of Marist society a curious note reveals :“At the start of 2023, the Charity was informed by the RLSS [ Religious Life Safeguarding Service] of an historic allegation madeagainst a deceased member of the Society. The allegation was immediately investigatedwith all relevant parties (including the Charity Commission) notified of the event. After afull investigation and professional advice, the victim received a private financial settlementof £30,000 in full and final settlement of the claim. The RLSS has now closed this case.”
Damian says the charity ” deliberately lied about and concealed O’Neill’s abuse from the police; from school and charity regulators; from charitable donors and beneficiaries; from current, former and prospective staff, pupils and parents at St Mary’s College from other potential victims of O’Neill’s grooming or abuse; and from the wider public.”
He said :”The Diocese of Middlesbrough, the Department for Education and the Charity Commission have all failed to demonstrate effective, timely, or appropriate oversight of the Marist Fathers at any time since the abuse was disclosed in 1993. Between 2017 and 2020 when I brought these important concerns to their attention in great detail and in line with their statutory or other formal responsibilities, these allegedly independent regulators have blankly refused to address any of them directly. They have simply chosen to turn a blind eye, both to O’Neill’s sexual abuse of a child in his care and to its long-term, deliberate concealment by the Marist Fathers.”
He managed to send his evidence to the national child sex abuse inquiry in the UK headed by Professor Alexis Jay about the case, though by that stage its formal hearings were closed. The inquiry has published a wider critical report on child sexual abuse in the Roman Catholic Church.
The Charity Commission says it is beyond its power to do anything about a charity’s role in “historic ” cases of child sexual abuse but this will be tested in a judicial review it is bringing against the Parliamentary Ombudsman claiming it is exceeding its powers in this case.
Blackburn is not alone in suffering child sexual abuse at the hands of Marist Fathers or the associated Marist Brothers. The Royal Commission into child sex abuse in Australia reported in 2014 on cases in schools in Queensland and New South Wales – one involving 19 boys – and in New Zealand nine Marist brothers were convicted of child sexual abuse.
Westminster Confidential 