Exclusive: Top executive who offered secret deal to cover up whistleblower case gets promotion to new national role in the NHS

Daniel Elkeles, moving from CEO of the London Ambulance Trust to NHS Providers. He is the former chief executive of the Epsom and St Helier NHS Trust.

In May Daniel Elkeles will become the £240,000 a year chief executive of NHS Providers, a membership body that covers all hospital, mental health, ambulance and community trusts. His job as NHS Providers will be to “to deliver high-quality, patient-focused care by enabling them to learn from each other, acting as their public voice and helping shape the system in which they operate.”

He will also following the demise of NHS England be a key link between the trusts and Wes Streeting, the health secretary, and the PM Sir Keir Starmer, whom he met in his present role as CEO of the London Ambulance Service.

His brief as NHS Providers say is to “build effective relationships with key stakeholders in central government, with regulators and across healthcare; champion member interests and raise their profile positively in the media.”

His appointment was lauded in the trade magazine the Health Service Journal, while the chair of NHS Providers, Professor Sir Terence Stephenson, said:

“He will spearhead our new strategic vision and help members deliver improvements for patients, service users and the communities they serve during a period of immense change and challenge in the health service.

“We have been through a robust process to find the right individual to provide leadership and support for our members, to influence key decision makers, and inspire and lead our staff team, reflecting our values and our commitment to becoming an anti-racist organisation.”
The HSJ went further saying: “During his time at Epsom and St Helier, Mr Elkeles led on plans, and secured funding, to build a brand new £500m specialist emergency care hospital in Sutton.

He also oversaw a “significant improvement” in patient care, quality, finance and leadership, culminating in the organisation being rated as “good” by the CQC.

The CEO also led on initiatives to improve culture and morale, resulting in Epsom and St Helier having strong scores in the staff survey in measures about equality, diversity and inclusion, as well as staff health and wellbeing.”

St Helier Hospital

What is missing from this plaudit is that the main hospital in that trust, St Helier, is falling down and in desperate straights with leaky roofs, brown water in the taps, and nothing is going to be done to replace it until 2036 under Labour’s current hospital building programme. Nor does Mr Elkeles appeared to have done anything much about it when he was chief executive.

But far worse this ” robust process” to select him as the best person for the job seems to have missed two rather key and worrying incidents in his career at St Helier. One led to prolonged employment tribunal hearings, the other reached the desk of Sir Robert Behrens, the former health service commissioner.

The employment tribunal case involved an extremely competent doctor who was dismissed after being branded as ” unfit for purpose” – a legal term that doesn’t exist for people -at a hearing organised by the trust. I am not naming her in this article but people may find part of the story familiar to readers of my blog.

What I am concentrating on is the role of the chief executive in dealing with her case.

Among the papers released for the tribunal were private emails between Mr Elkeles and her, which then became public documents.

In one Mr Elkeles offers a deal for her to leave the trust and escape what would amount to a disciplinary hearing if she drops any action against the trust.

He wrote: “We ensure MYT[ Mid Yorks NHS Trust] agree that you can go there and we jointly set up with them the required training and support
2) ESTH will pay your salary for a period of 6-12 months (to be agreed) whilst you are at MYT
3) At the end of the agreed 6-12 months period ESTH will no longer be your employer
4) ESTH agree to cease the MHPS process[ this was a hearing questioning her competence]which means we can find a way to ensure you are re-validated (not my area of expertise but i am sure there will be a
way)
5) You need to drop all the actions you are taking against ESTH.
If we can agree this then I would hope that everyone can move forward positively.”

When she refused to do this he wrote back: “I made a proposal on how to provide a constructive ending to this process on Friday. I did not expect to receive this type of reply from you which in my view does nothing to try and find a solution to this issue but just perpetuates the current impasse we seem to have reached. I therefore withdraw my offer and any input from me as CEO to resolve this informally. The hearing that is scheduled for Monday and Tuesday next week should continue as planned and reach whatever conclusion the panel believe is appropriate.”

What he was asking was that she withdrew any allegations against the trust of sexism and racism ( she was the sole woman at that level in that department and from an ethnic minority) and also hide a whistleblower claim about an avoidable death of a heart patient there which the trust admitted later in public they avoided reporting to the local coroner.

Her lawyer also produced statistics showing that despite the trust employing, like most London trusts, a very diverse range of people, it did not have a very good record in treating them.

As far as validation was concerned the General Medical Council revalidated her anyway – despite multiple claims of incompetence from the trust which were all dismissed by an independent medical expert asked to examine them.

The second case which involved the widow of a patient who died in agony at St Helier Hospital with nurses refusing to give him pain relief was covered on my blog. You can read the case here.

Robert Sheppard: Left to die in agony by St Helier Hospital

Her complaint to the Health Services Commissioner about his treatment led an apology from the chief executive but other matters by the management were brushed under the carpet. This included the fact that Robert Sheppard had picked up a bacterial infection called klebsiella which attacks people with a weak immune system and it was never notified by the hospital to the authorities, In fact his initial death certificate which would had to be provided by the hospital’s doctors airbrushed out that he had the infection.

Wendy , his widow, said:” Dying with dignity was something not given to Robert. I will never forgive St.Helier Hospital. It’s failures towards Robert were ‘swept under the carpet’ by the Hospital management.  My complaints were misconstrued to make St.Helier look in a better light and incidents that happened weren’t recorded in Robert’s medical notes so I am told. “

All this raises questions about how Daniel Elkeles will do in his new job. Will he really speak truth to power or will he bury issues from public scrutiny to protect the reputation of the NHS trusts , who are his members? Will patient safety and equality and race issues be tackled with vigour or sacrificed to make sure his organisation gets a good press.

One-Time
Monthly
Yearly

Make a one-time donation

Make a monthly donation

Make a yearly donation

Choose an amount

£5.00
£1.00
£20.00
£5.00
£15.00
£100.00
£5.00
£15.00
£100.00

Or enter a custom amount

£

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

DonateDonate monthlyDonate yearly

Please donate to Westminster Confidential

£10.00

How the St Georges, St Helier and Epsom Hospital Group fixed the dismissal of whistleblower cardiologist Dr Usha Prasad

St Helier Hospital

After my blog on the double standards of the Epsom and St Helier University Hospital Trust over its treatment of whistleblowers which included references to Dr Usha Prasad, I received an email from the communications team of the hospital group.

According to the team I had got everything wrong. The whistleblowing case had absolutely nothing to do with her dismissal. They said: ” It is not correct to say Ms Usha Prasad was dismissed for raising patient safety concerns. A disciplinary panel concluded that she should be dismissed for competency grounds, concerns around her practice/conduct and because relationships with key colleagues had broken down. This decision was upheld on appeal.”

Technically they are correct. But if you delve deeper it shows that this disciplinary panel was a completely flawed process – ignoring vital information and chaired by a person whose integrity had already been called into question and falls into a management playbook used by other trusts to get rid of troublesome doctors who raise unwelcome concerns about patient safety.

Even the conclusion of this disciplinary panel used a fake term. The chair concluded that she was ” unfit for purpose”. There is no such term in English employment law – a system can be ” unfit for purpose” but an individual cannot. And this has been raised at the highest level in NHS England by colleagues of her when they met Professor Stephen Powis, the national medical director, who could not explain such a term applying to an individual doctor.

Then there is the issue of competency. The big flaw in this is that after she raised her protected disclosure on patient safety the trust sent 43 complaints about her practice to the General Medical Council .These were organised by Dr James Marsh, then medical director of the Epsom and St Helier University Trust now Deputy Group Chief Executive Officer of the St George’s Group.

Dr James Marsh

Dr Marsh chose close colleague Dr Peter Andrews, a fellow renal physician who worked on the same ward, to investigate the claims, and Dr Ian Beeton, a cardiologist in private practice at nearby St Peter’s Hospital as an “independent” expert. Dr Beeton works with Dr Marsh’s wife, a radiologist at the same hospital. They asked Dr Richard Bogle, the head of the cardiology at the Epsom and St Helier Trust, to file the complaints who also works closely with private cardiologist Dr David Fluck at St Peter’s Hospital.

When it came to the disciplinary hearing the trust brought in Dr David Fluck to sit on the tribunal to judge Dr Usha Prasad. He also worked on joint projects with Dr Marsh.

I leave you to judge whether this was a genuinely independent investigation without any conflict of interest. But when the complaint went to the General Medical Council and was seen by a genuine independent cardiologist in Teesside and formerly at the world famous Papworth Hospital every complaint was thrown out. In fact I am told the GMC looked at the eight most serious complaints and decided there was nothing to see. And not only was it thrown out by the GMC , it decided to validate Dr Prasad as competent to work in any hospital in the UK for the next five years.

This GMC ruling was brushed aside by the disciplinary hearing and ignored by the judge when it came to an employment tribunal hearing later. The only clue came at the tribunal hearing when Dr James Marsh claimed that the trust had higher standards than the GMC. Frankly this was insulting to both the GMC and the eminent cardiologist who thought differently.

The second charge against her is that she couldn’t work with colleagues. Certainly relations with Dr James Marsh did deteriorate over her decision to say an elderly patient who died because the trust did not act on a serious heart condition was an ” avoidable death” and should have been notified to the coroner and the Care Quality Commission. Dr Marsh wanted this conclusion struck out and she refused to do it.

But if this is correct this would apply elsewhere and it doesn’t. Her work at Pinderfields Hospital in Yorkshire and at St George’s is praised by the hospitals and there have been no complaints about her relations with colleagues.

Dr David Ward

Dr David Ward, a close colleague of hers at St George’s, said this: ” I am pleased to say that I worked alongside Dr Usha Prasad when she was a visiting Consultant Cardiologist at St George’s Hospital (now part of the united Trust with Georges-Epsom- St-Helier or GESH). I found her to be collegiate, knowledgeable in general cardiology, skilled in her specialised areas (echo, heart failure etc). She was well-liked by all staff with whom she worked (catheter lab, echo). I (or anyone in the cardiology department at St George’s) never had any concerns about Dr Prasad’s clinical skills or competence and I find it most surprising that St Helier have retrospectively (for that it what it amounts to) found reason to question her abilities, coincidentally or not, after she had raised concerns about patient safety. I suspect this, also known as whistleblowing, is the underlying motive for the profoundly vengeful and unjustified response by the Trust.”

Claire McLaughlan

Finally there is the question of the disciplinary hearing itself. It was chaired by Claire McLaughlan – a profile of her is here – who ran into trouble with a judge at a hearing with cardiologist Dr Mattu, who won his case, for omitting evidence and over an interview for Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Health Trust with whistleblower Dr Chris Day, whose case is still continuing. He found the record of the interview with him had been altered, missing key points. As he had a secret recording of it, she had no alternative but to apologise and change back the record.

One final point. Dr Usha Prasad told me the former CEO of the Epsom and St Helier Trust, Daniel Elkeles ( now chief executive of the London Ambulance Trust) was prepared to “stop” the disciplinary hearing if I was prepared to drop “all you have against the trust; an ET case of whistleblowing detriment and harassment, discrimination”. One wonders how many back door deals take place over patient safety.

One-Time
Monthly
Yearly

Make a one-time donation

Make a monthly donation

Make a yearly donation

Choose an amount

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

Or enter a custom amount

£

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

DonateDonate monthlyDonate yearly

Please donate to Westminster Confidential

£10.00

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

Epsom Hospital

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jaqueline Totterdell – chief executive

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

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

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

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

Read the text of the letter below:

Dear colleagues

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

With best wishes,

Gillian Norton, Chairman

Jacqueline Totterdell, Group Chief Executive

One-Time
Monthly
Yearly

Make a one-time donation

Make a monthly donation

Make a yearly donation

Choose an amount

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

Or enter a custom amount

£

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

DonateDonate monthlyDonate yearly

Please donate to Westminster Confidential

£10.00

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr Usha Prasad

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Today he issued a further statement: “

Dr David Ward

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

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

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

One-Time
Monthly
Yearly

Make a one-time donation

Make a monthly donation

Make a yearly donation

Choose an amount

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

Or enter a custom amount

£

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

DonateDonate monthlyDonate yearly

please donate to Westminster Confidential

£10.00

Dr Usha Prasad whistleblower case: Judge cancels hearing from trust again at eleventh hour

Consultant cardiologist convinces judge she is too ill to attend and case cannot be listed until next spring

Dr Usha Prasad

Dr Usha Prasad, the whistleblower consultant cardiologist, yesterday won her argument that she was too ill, because of mental stress, to defend herself at another employment tribunal brought by Epsom and St Helier University NHS Trust without even having to attend the hearing.

The trust which originally wanted her to pay £180,000 costs- reduced in August to £24,000 – sought this week to strike out all her claims, including her whistleblowing case that an elderly man who died at the hospital was ” an avoidable death” which was never reported to the coroner.

The hearing was also set to go ahead tomorrow with remote links already sent out to people observing the case this afternoon when acting regional employment judge Katharine Andrews suddenly cancelled the hearing. This is the second time in two months hearings brought by the trust have been cancelled by a judge.

The costs hearing in August was cancelled when the tribunal met because according to judge Mrs E J R McLaren one of the panel members to hear the case could not attend. Dr Prasad had sent a letter from her GP saying she was under severe stress but another regional judge had rejected this.

This time Dr Prasad sent a fresh letter from her GP saying she was still under severe stress as a result of this long running case involving the trust.

Epsom Hospital

In her letter the judge says: “This hearing was first listed for 6 April 2023. The claimant’s application to postpone that hearing was refused although it did not in any event proceed as there was insufficient judicial resource available. Accordingly it was relisted to be heard on 6 June 2023. That hearing was then postponed at the claimant’s request as she was unavailable due to a professional commitment and also at the request of the respondent who considered that a one day hearing was required. The matter was then listed for one day to be heard tomorrow, 18 October 2023.

On 29 September 2023 the claimant applied to postpone tomorrow’s hearing due to her ill-health. That application was refused as the medical evidence enclosed within her application was insufficient.
The claimant has today repeated her application and enclosed a medical note (apparently from her GP) that does confirm that she is unfit to attend and that a delay of 3 to 4 months would enable her health to improve sufficiently.
The respondent has objected to the request referring to previous postponement requests by the claimants and costs they have incurred that will be wasted.
In all the circumstances the claimant’s application to postpone is granted and the hearing will be re-listed not before 1 March 2024. Any further applications by the claimant for a postponement are extremely unlikely to be granted. It is open to the respondent to make an application for wasted costs in due course if they believe that to be appropriate’ .”

Epsom and St Helier University Health trust have been fighting Dr Prasad for years and strongly objected to the hearing being postponed.

The regional judge who took the decision last heard one of her original tribunal cases in December 2020 when a tribunal was asked to rule again about the action of a fellow Indian doctor Dr Aran Kumar Perikala who wrote anonymous letters to the trust’s chief executive, the CQC, the GMC and Jeremy Hunt then health secretary, saying she was a danger to patient safety. He was unmasked but the trust did not take any action against him. Dr Prasad claimed he was sexist. The judge rejected this but ruled that he had behaved “unprofessionally ” by his actions. You can read my account of this bizarre hearing here. The whistleblowing allegations emerged at another hearing later.

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

One-Time
Monthly
Yearly

Make a one-time donation

Make a monthly donation

Make a yearly donation

Choose an amount

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

Or enter a custom amount

£

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

DonateDonate monthlyDonate yearly

Please donate to Westminster Confidential

£10.00

BMA chair seeks whistleblower Dr Usha Prasad’s reinstatement and the dropping of cost hearings in the case

But the trust is rushing to reconvene the cost hearing before she can go to a tribunal to challenge the verdict against her

Dr Phil Banfield chair of the British Medical Association

The British Medical Association has belatedly intervened in the long running dispute between whistleblower cardiology consultant Dr Usha Prasad and the Epsom and St Helier University Trust (now combined with St George’s Hospital Trust).

Dr Phil Banfield, chair of the BMA, has written directly to the chief executive of the trust, Jacqueline Totterdell, asking her to drop the costs hearing and reinstate her.

Dr Prasad was facing a hearing last month where the trust was demanding that she pay £180,000 of its costs including the fees of 21 lawyers employed by Capsticks and a QC. It was called off at the last moment when one of the tribunal panel failed to turn up. The financial demand was suddenly reduced to £24,000 without any explanation from the trust at the same time. As reported previously 99.95 per cent of employment tribunals never ask the claimant to pay the employers’ costs. If it had gone ahead it would have been a record sum claimed by any health trust against one of its medical staff.

Dr Usha Prasad

The BMA’s top level intervention by its chairman comes after a long campaign by consultants supporting Dr Prasad to ask their union to act. The BMA previously decided not to give her legal support which meant much of the time she was a litigant in person fighting 21 lawyers. One hearing which I attended, she was represented by a barrister, but the judge Tony Hyams-Parish, who lives in the Epsom and Ewell area, threw out her whistleblowing claims and her race and sex discrimination claims as ” misconceived” or ” without merit”.

Jacqueline Totterdell, chief executive of the trust

The BMA in their letter to the trust highlights the race complaints.. Quoting from the trust’s own information it says: “The figures which Dr Prasad has shared with us are attached and point to a disproportionate impact on ethnic minority doctors during a period when Dr Prasad was employed by the Trust. It is notable that 10 of the 11 doctors subjected to conduct concerns were from an ethnic minority background when ethnic minority doctors made up approximately one in three of the workforce for the period 2018-2020. It is of further note that all of those excluded, referred to the GMC, or dismissed were from an ethnic minority background.”

The BMA has asked for an explanation. Certainly it seems to me that either the trust’s recruitment policy was so flawed about the BAME doctors it employed or the people responsible for this were racially biased. The judge who heard the same evidence ignored it.

judge tony hyams parish

The judge also expunged from the record whistleblowing claims by Dr Prasad about the ” avoidable death” of a heart patient whose death was never reported by the hospital to the coroner or the Care Quality Commission. At the hearing Dr Richard Bogle, the head of cardiology, admitted it was wrong and should have been reported. The judge ignored what he said allowing the trust to try and claim that whistleblowing has nothing to with her dismissal.

The letter from the BMA emphasises the distress caused to Dr Prasad. “It is with concern we note the impact that this is having on Dr Prasad who reports great distress at facing a cost application before her appeal is heard where she is seeking redress for whistleblowing detriments including discrimination and harassment which she vigorously contends she has suffered while in the employment of Epsom and St Hellier University Hospitals NHS Trust.”

It calls on the trust to withdraw from costs proceedings against Dr Prasad adding: “We are concerned that this threat from employers of legal costs may be used to discourage people from raising legitimate public interest concerns or seeking to redress workplace injustices in the future. As I am sure you are aware, it is important that doctors are able to raise concerns about behaviours and actions that may have an adverse effect on patient safety.”

The letter asks the trust to reconsider re-instating Dr Prasad adding ” alongside an apology and reversal of damages caused to her, thereby resolving this long running litigation and allowing Dr Prasad to fulfil her career in medicine.”

I asked the trust for its response. This is it:

“It is entirely inaccurate that the Trust is seeking legal fees in relation to issues stemming from Dr Prasad raising patient safety concerns. The Employment Tribunal heard a number of claims by Dr Prasad which they unanimously dismissed, and commented that some of them were ‘completely misconceived’. The Employment Tribunal will hold a further hearing to decide whether Dr Prasad should pay a contribution towards the Trust’s costs.

“We take patient safety concerns very seriously and encourage everyone who works at the Trust to raise issues at every opportunity so we can make improvements to patient care.”

The trust is as good as its word on rushing through the case. At the case management hearing that followed the adjournment of the hearing the KC for the trust got them to agree to rush through the next hearing despite a huge backlog of cases at that tribunal.

Dr Prasad has only until September 29 to tell them whether she can pay the £24,000 and provided full details and documents of her income and outgoings. She has until October 20 to provide a witness statement backing up the reasons why she cannot pay. She also has to provide a skeleton argument five days before the hearing. No date has yet been fixed but she has a date at the end of January for her employment appeal tribunal hearing where she can challenge the judge’s verdict.

Please donate to Westminster Confidential to allow me to continue investigative reporting like this.

One-Time
Monthly
Yearly

Make a one-time donation

Make a monthly donation

Make a yearly donation

Choose an amount

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

Or enter a custom amount

£

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

DonateDonate monthlyDonate yearly

Please donate to Westminster Confidential

£10.00

Revealed: The battalions of Capsticks lawyers employed to pursue whistleblower consultant cardiologist Dr Usha Prasad

Dr Usha Prasad

The adjournment on Wednesday of the costs hearing against whistleblower Dr Usha Prasad provided welcome relief for embattled and mentally stressed consultant cardiologist dismissed by the Epsom and St Helier University NHS trust.

But before the case was adjourned by judge Mrs E J McLaren ( and the trust’s claim cut from £180,000 to £24,000) Capsticks had submitted a breakdown of their costs to the judge. They had to do this to get the trust’s costs back and it provides a rare public insight into the length lawyers go to pursue whistleblowers at the trust’s behest.

Remember all the money spent by the trust comes from you the taxpayer and is used by the management of the trust to pursue whistleblowers rather than provide more patient care. And also remember again that in 99.95 per cent of all employment tribunal cases the employee is not asked to pay the employer’s costs.

So the £172,000 bill presented by Capsticks to the tribunal makes very interesting reading. It reveals that at various times no fewer than 20 lawyers and paralegals were involved in countering Dr Usha Prasad various claims. They were paid anything from £82 to £160 an hour. They included two partners on £160 an hour, three in house barristers two on £160 an hour and one on £120 an hour;, two legal directors again on £160 an hour, four senior solicitors on between £130 and £160 an hour; three solicitors on £143 and £120 an hour, two trainee solicitors on £96 an hour and five paralegals on £82 an hour.

Counsel Fees for the barrister Miss Nadia Motraghi totalled £50.775 .These were for a Preliminary Hearing on 30.09.21 and a brief and refresher on a Final Hearing on 01.11.21 for 16 day hearing.

Jessica Blackburn, senior solicitor at Capsticks Ltd

The biggest payout among the 20 lawyers working for Capsticks was to Jessica Blackburn, a senior solicitor who was promoted half way through the case, earned over £47,000 in fees for pursuing Dr Usha Prasad. There is a profile of her on this site here. She was the most combative in her approach , ignoring her doctor’s plea for a postponement and telling her everything she had claimed, including the whistleblower case over an ” avoidable death ” of a heart patient was ” without merit”.

In contrast Dr Usha Prasad could only afford one barrister for part of the time and relied on a friend and fellow consultant Dr Philip Howard to support her pro bono. Otherwise she was a litigant in person facing a team of 20 lawyers.

St Helier Hospital

What is the most disturbing is that the Epsom and St Helier University NHS Trust can ill afford to spend hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayer’s money pursuing a consultant cardiologist. She had to spend 28 months in the office on ” restricted clinical duty” while the trust investigated 43 cases against her. They sent them to the General Medical Council which not only exonerated her but extended her licence to practice without the need for further revalidation. Any sane person would have decided then and there to drop all this and reinstated her after the GMC findings.

Instead they continued what can be only described as a vendetta against her putting her under more and more stress until she was barely able to cope attending another tribunal hearing.

Meanwhile the trust is building up debts – the latest board meeting in July revealed it is £35 million in the red ( up from £27 million in April). Patients waiting for cardiac procedures, mainly imaging, and reviews are having to wait longer and the waiting list is growing – up from 2551 in July 2022 to 2901 in April 2023 -according to the NHS waiting list tracker.

Until this started Dr Usha Prasad who had been there since 2010 had seen 15,000 patients and had no complaints. If she had been reinstated the waiting list might not be so high and more patients would have been treated. And all this taxpayers money would not have been wasted if the trust had decided to use their own hr management to sort this out without going to a tribunal.

Councillor Ross Garrod, Labour leader of Merton Council

Meanwhile the growing deficit has led the trust to plan closing St Helier’s emergency department, maternity services and children’s in patient services provoking fury from residents. Councillor Ross Garrod, leader of Merton council, has called for re-assessment of the impact of this and a campaign group has been set up to fight the proposals. The website is here.

It’s time the trust got its priorities right. Stop spending hundreds of thousands of pounds fighting whistleblowers and spend more time and energy in running your services better.

Please donate to my blog so I can continue my forensic reporting on cases like Usha’s.

One-Time
Monthly
Yearly

Make a one-time donation

Make a monthly donation

Make a yearly donation

Choose an amount

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

Or enter a custom amount

£

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

DonateDonate monthlyDonate yearly

Please donate to Westminster Confidential

£10.00

Judge adjourns £180,000 costs hearing case against whistleblower consultant Dr Usha Prasad

Trust scales down cost claim from £180,000 to £24,000 in private case management meeting

Typical tribunal room Pic credit: gov.uk

In a surprise move this morning judge Mrs E J McLaren adjourned the £180,000 costs hearing brought by Epsom and St Helier University NHS Trust against whistleblower consultant cardiologist Dr Usha Prasad.

She took the decision before the hearing started and explained that one of the panellists who heard the original employment tribunal hearing under judge Tony Hyams-Parish was now unable to attend. This appears to have happened in the last 24 hours as the acting regional judge Omar Khalil had ordered the hearing to go ahead. No explanation was given why the panellist couldn’t suddenly attend.

The decision also comes as Dr Usha Prasad has repeatedly requested a postponement of the hearing because she is ill and couldn’t think straight because of mental stress and sent the tribunal a doctor’s note confirming this. This had been repeatedly ignored by lawyers Capsticks, who represent the trust, and the tribunal but the judge said yesterday that Dr Prasad’s health will be discussed in a private case management meeting convened immediately after the adjournment. At that meeting with the judge the trust caved in and reduced the costs claim from £180,000 to £24,000 and accepted it would have to wait some time for a fresh hearing.

The adjournment also comes at a time of national public outrage following the baby murder conviction of nurse Lucy Letby at the Countess of Chester Hospital when it was revealed that managers threatened to report consultants who raised the alarm to the General Medical Council and forced them to write a letter of apology to the murderer nurse.

The situation was worse for Dr Prasad at the Epsom trust as she was reported to the General Medical Council by the trust . A document listing 43 cases was sent to the GMC who investigated her and then exonerated her taking the unusual decision to revalidate her to practice without any further application from her. That having failed the trust held an internal inquiry branding her as ” unfit for purpose ” as a human being because they could no longer say she wasn’t an excellent doctor.

Dr James Marsh

The man behind the continual pursuit of Dr Prasad is thought to be Dr James Marsh, the joint deputy chief executive and joint medical director of the St George’s, Epsom and St Helier hospital group, who gave evidence against her at the tribunal.

Jessica Blackburn

In a final act to put pressure on Dr Prasad before today’s tribunal Mrs Jessica Blackburn, the senior solicitor for lawyers, Capsticks representing the trust, sent her two new bundles of documents the previous night and Usha didn’t see it until only a few minutes before the tribunal was due to start. Given she knew she was mentally stressed and was a litigant in person with no lawyer to help her understand them, it looks to me like either a singularly callous act or she was rather late in finalising the trust’s case.

There is a wider issue here. As I have said before in 99.95 per cent of cases at employment tribunals, the employee does not pay the employer’s costs.

The picture that is now emerging is that the exception to this rule is the whistleblower. Usha’s case is not unique in this respect.

Dr Usha Prasad

Cost threats have been made against Dr Chris Day, who has been involved in a ten year battle with the Health Education Executive and Greenwich and Lewisham NHS trust over patient deaths and safety at Woolwich Hospital intensive care unit; Dr Peter Duffy, a urologist at the University Hospitals of Morecambe Bay NHS Foundation Trust, later vindicated over patient deaths; and outside the NHS, Alison McDermott, a management consultant, over bullying and harassment at Sellafield and the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority. Two more whistleblowers have now come forward at Sellafield and are under threat.

This list is the tip of the iceberg – I know of a number of other doctors, belonging to the informal Justice for Doctors group, who haven’t made their cases public yet, who have also been threatened with huge costs.

It is almost as though NHS and public sector managers have devised a standard playbook to use against any whistleblower who dares bring up the issue of patient safety to frighten them from doing anything about it. This is an area which both the inquiry and MPs on the Commons health and social care committee must look into – for the sake of all hospital patients and the nuclear safety of our country. Management bullies who threaten caring doctors and nurses must be removed from their jobs. No whistleblower should suffer like Usha Prasad ever again.

Please donate to Westminster Confidential to allow me to investigate forensically any injustice.

One-Time
Monthly
Yearly

Make a one-time donation

Make a monthly donation

Make a yearly donation

Choose an amount

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

Or enter a custom amount

£

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

DonateDonate monthlyDonate yearly

Please donate to Westminster Confidential

£10.00

Judge insists whistleblower Dr Prasad £180,000 cost hearing must go ahead despite her GP’s warning of mental stress

Acting regional employment judge Omar Khalil

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.

One-Time
Monthly
Yearly

Make a one-time donation

Make a monthly donation

Make a yearly donation

Choose an amount

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

Or enter a custom amount

£

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

DonateDonate monthlyDonate yearly

Please donate to Westminster Confidential

£10.00

Jessica Blackburn: The ambitious Capsticks lawyer with a mission to unsettle whistleblowers

Jessica Blackburn senior associate Capsticks Pic Credit:London Portrait photographer David Woolfall

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.

One-Time
Monthly
Yearly

Make a one-time donation

Make a monthly donation

Make a yearly donation

Choose an amount

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

Or enter a custom amount

£

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

DonateDonate monthlyDonate yearly

please donate to Westminster Confidential

£10.00