General Medical Council's Legal Team
" Fear, surprise, ruthless inefficiency"
Head Cardinal - Mark Shaw QC :)
Head Cardinal - Mark Shaw QC :)
The most interesting thing about doing what I do is observing the General Medical Council's legal team from afar. They amuse me greatly. Indeed, their activities are much like a Spanish Inquisition. Perhaps there are a number of Cardinal Fangs but it is rather fascinating that at present the General Medical Council is paying top Queens Counsel rates to fight against a number of Litigants in Persons [ who are doctors]. Mark Shaw QC appears to be a busy man. Rumour has it that his rates are £10,000 per day. Yes, we all choke at that figure but then Mark Shaw QC is good at what he does - arguing one argument in one GMC case and then arguing completely the opposite in another. If anyone wants to go Mark Shaw QC spotting, please do. I suspect he lives at the Royal Courts of Justice and probably doesn't have any qualms in ambushing his opponents. We are due to place Mark Shaw QC's cost schedules in many cases online soon.
A classic example is the case of Robbie Powell where he argued the opposite of what he has argued in other cases. He argued that Robbie Powell's case could not be investigated without a complaint or complainant. In a recent case, despite the fact the complainant withdrew the complaint in a surgeon's case, Shaw insists the GMC can take action without a complaint . Indeed, in this case, the GMC placed a warning on the doctors record despite the fact they didn't have a complaint [ or that in this case it had been withdrawn]. Does this mean the GMC acts one way in one case and completely the other way in others? Is Mark Shaw QC telling us that the GMC does not have to be consistent? Or are we just noticing the ways of Mark Shaw QC.
Fascinating, I thought. Mark Shaw QC was also famous in backing out last minute to Arpad Toth's case against the GMC a few years ago and the case only saw the light of day because Mary O Rourke QC wanted to put her case forward. The convenient thing about running NHS Exposed is that we have a lot of doctors emailing us the fascinating antics of Mark Shaw QC. Indeed, he is rather a interesting creature. Handsomely paid by all the blood, sweat and guts of hard working doctors who have no idea what Shaw does in their name. We must tell the world that Shaw is from Blackstone Chambers. It carries out a great deal of GMC prosecution work. Blackstones essentially protects the General Medical Council and no doubt overlooks all the violations of human rights committed by the GMC.
When I was against the General Medical Council has a litigant in person in 2004, I was ambushed with large numbers of documents all delivered last minute ie the night before. The two files they had apparently sent didn't even get to me until 2 days after the hearing. By then, I had successfully fought the judge and the opposition to adjourn the hearing. The GMC at the time advised the judge that we should keep going despite the fact that I did not receive the two bundles. So, Jane Collier and the Judge discussed matters between them but I was lucky, on this occasion, the judge had no alternative but to adjourn. For the privilege of winning my application, he slapped £2500 on me as costs. I paid that money then whipped it back from the GMC in a later hearing.
At the time it was a bit like a storm of paper flying everywhere - by fax and by email. I was bombarded to wrong foot me. This is a classical tactic the General Medical Council uses. They ambush you with miles of paperwork and expect you not to know your rights as a litigant in person. I do remember that Blackstone Chambers who is currently fighting on a number of human rights cases - told the court that I couldn't afford legal advisers so there was no point in waiting for me to get them. The following month the European Courts ruled that a lack of legal advice was a breach of Article 6. Blackstone Chambers also walked over to me in the guise of Jane Collier to offer me pages of Gatley on Libel. We told her we had already read the book. I suspect that startled her. In the year 2004, I was green, I was also naive but I had one thing going for me - I was bloody brave and I would do things that I couldn't even contemplate now. Even to this day, my relatives wonder how I pulled the adjournment off. I have no idea myself, it was just observation, learning to time things properly and knowing your fundamental rights. I suppose, in the end, I didn't let go - despite Collier's plan to ambush me with words. I might have respected her more if she had played a straight game. The GMC don't play straight, they always have to use their little tactics of ambush.
Well, one thing you have to hand over to the legal team at GMC Towers, in the case they have against a surgeon this weekend, they may win but we are all going to laugh at them later in the year. Afterall, mocking and parody is best served cold. This surgeon has frazzled the General Medical Council, they have hired two solicitors and one Queens Counsel against him. The team has victimised the doctor by instigating further frivolous complaints against him. One through their organisation of common purpose NCAS where his qualified documentation to their lawyers was used as further evidence of so called misconduct. This tells us all that the GMC won't even allow you to fight your corner without pouncing on you at every stage. So, you write a letter to a solicitor, and they take that letter and use it as supposed misconduct despite their guidance on free speech.
We have seen this interesting tactic as it was played on me in 2004, when I was due for a hearing, the General Medical Council commenced a frivolous complaint about me on material I had written on the internet. They dropped it a month after the judgment in 2004. By using their procedures as an instrument of victimisation, the General Medical Council is able to dissuade anyone from challenging them. Their aim is also to develop a finding of some sort to undermine the doctors original case. So essentially, if they say " Dr X is being investigated", the court will have the impression that the doctor is far from innocent. This is rather a clever tactic but we all know it exists. The Registrar who instigated the complaint in 2004, also amazingly instigated the complained dated 2007 during a challenge against Professor Rod Griffiths. The timing is just interesting - a bit like a tango. So in summary, the GMC commences an investigation during litigation. This phenomena has been seen in many doctors.
So yes, challenging the General Medical Council is an interesting escapade. Not many juniors do it because of the tactics used by the Council.
All we can say of the General Medical Council is this - we all know your game and now it is a spectator sport. Is anyone going to read this post, of course they are :). They are going to read it in the future as well.
Related link
Dr Crippen. How the GMC Spends Our Money.
A classic example is the case of Robbie Powell where he argued the opposite of what he has argued in other cases. He argued that Robbie Powell's case could not be investigated without a complaint or complainant. In a recent case, despite the fact the complainant withdrew the complaint in a surgeon's case, Shaw insists the GMC can take action without a complaint . Indeed, in this case, the GMC placed a warning on the doctors record despite the fact they didn't have a complaint [ or that in this case it had been withdrawn]. Does this mean the GMC acts one way in one case and completely the other way in others? Is Mark Shaw QC telling us that the GMC does not have to be consistent? Or are we just noticing the ways of Mark Shaw QC.
Fascinating, I thought. Mark Shaw QC was also famous in backing out last minute to Arpad Toth's case against the GMC a few years ago and the case only saw the light of day because Mary O Rourke QC wanted to put her case forward. The convenient thing about running NHS Exposed is that we have a lot of doctors emailing us the fascinating antics of Mark Shaw QC. Indeed, he is rather a interesting creature. Handsomely paid by all the blood, sweat and guts of hard working doctors who have no idea what Shaw does in their name. We must tell the world that Shaw is from Blackstone Chambers. It carries out a great deal of GMC prosecution work. Blackstones essentially protects the General Medical Council and no doubt overlooks all the violations of human rights committed by the GMC.
When I was against the General Medical Council has a litigant in person in 2004, I was ambushed with large numbers of documents all delivered last minute ie the night before. The two files they had apparently sent didn't even get to me until 2 days after the hearing. By then, I had successfully fought the judge and the opposition to adjourn the hearing. The GMC at the time advised the judge that we should keep going despite the fact that I did not receive the two bundles. So, Jane Collier and the Judge discussed matters between them but I was lucky, on this occasion, the judge had no alternative but to adjourn. For the privilege of winning my application, he slapped £2500 on me as costs. I paid that money then whipped it back from the GMC in a later hearing.
At the time it was a bit like a storm of paper flying everywhere - by fax and by email. I was bombarded to wrong foot me. This is a classical tactic the General Medical Council uses. They ambush you with miles of paperwork and expect you not to know your rights as a litigant in person. I do remember that Blackstone Chambers who is currently fighting on a number of human rights cases - told the court that I couldn't afford legal advisers so there was no point in waiting for me to get them. The following month the European Courts ruled that a lack of legal advice was a breach of Article 6. Blackstone Chambers also walked over to me in the guise of Jane Collier to offer me pages of Gatley on Libel. We told her we had already read the book. I suspect that startled her. In the year 2004, I was green, I was also naive but I had one thing going for me - I was bloody brave and I would do things that I couldn't even contemplate now. Even to this day, my relatives wonder how I pulled the adjournment off. I have no idea myself, it was just observation, learning to time things properly and knowing your fundamental rights. I suppose, in the end, I didn't let go - despite Collier's plan to ambush me with words. I might have respected her more if she had played a straight game. The GMC don't play straight, they always have to use their little tactics of ambush.
Well, one thing you have to hand over to the legal team at GMC Towers, in the case they have against a surgeon this weekend, they may win but we are all going to laugh at them later in the year. Afterall, mocking and parody is best served cold. This surgeon has frazzled the General Medical Council, they have hired two solicitors and one Queens Counsel against him. The team has victimised the doctor by instigating further frivolous complaints against him. One through their organisation of common purpose NCAS where his qualified documentation to their lawyers was used as further evidence of so called misconduct. This tells us all that the GMC won't even allow you to fight your corner without pouncing on you at every stage. So, you write a letter to a solicitor, and they take that letter and use it as supposed misconduct despite their guidance on free speech.
We have seen this interesting tactic as it was played on me in 2004, when I was due for a hearing, the General Medical Council commenced a frivolous complaint about me on material I had written on the internet. They dropped it a month after the judgment in 2004. By using their procedures as an instrument of victimisation, the General Medical Council is able to dissuade anyone from challenging them. Their aim is also to develop a finding of some sort to undermine the doctors original case. So essentially, if they say " Dr X is being investigated", the court will have the impression that the doctor is far from innocent. This is rather a clever tactic but we all know it exists. The Registrar who instigated the complaint in 2004, also amazingly instigated the complained dated 2007 during a challenge against Professor Rod Griffiths. The timing is just interesting - a bit like a tango. So in summary, the GMC commences an investigation during litigation. This phenomena has been seen in many doctors.
So yes, challenging the General Medical Council is an interesting escapade. Not many juniors do it because of the tactics used by the Council.
All we can say of the General Medical Council is this - we all know your game and now it is a spectator sport. Is anyone going to read this post, of course they are :). They are going to read it in the future as well.
Related link
Dr Crippen. How the GMC Spends Our Money.
0 comments:
Post a Comment