GMC's Legal Costs in Pal v GMC.

Mark Shaw QC.
Its not a "Lie". Its a "dispute"

I love this FOIA response from the General Medical Council. Apparently, the public cannot have access to the amount of money the GMC frittered away from doctors subscription funds. That too - in defending a "link" and the fact that a Psychiatrist was indeed a Psychiatrist. In 2007, the GMC got so excited about their complaint that their plan was to Interim Order me and push me down through to a Fitness to Practise hearing. When I stamped on them, they hurriedly dropped the vexatious complaint and cleared me. Having fibbed and cheated all the way to the courts, I simply wanted to know how much this classic act of fibbing cost junior doctors.

GMC Reference number IAT/ME/F09/2250 26th May 2009

You have also asked that you be supplied with details of monies paid to Mark Shaw QC by the GMC in connection with this hearing. Again, I have considered the release of information to you in accordance with the FOIA. I consider, however that this information would also be exempt from release under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 [ FOIA]. The exemption set out in the FOIA is : Section 43(2) - Commercial Interests - this relates to information requested which is held by a public authority and the disclosure of which would, or would be likely to prejudice the commecial interests of any person.

The exemption is not absolute, which means that it is subject to the public interest test. We have undertaken such a test and concluded that the factors against disclosure are stronger than those in favour of release. The GMC is a charitable organisation and we believe that to disclose the amount we spent on obtaining legal assistance for this matter would place us at a disadvantage in the future when we wish to obtain competitive quotes for legal assistance.

The first reason given for non disclosure was that the case was continuing. When the case finished, I requested this again. Clearly, Mark Shaw QC does not want the world to know that he gets paid a fat cheque. And believe me it is a very very fat cheque. In 2004, the GMC was reputed to have spent about half a million on defending a typographical error [ thats legal costs].

Of course, all these simple matters could be settled without resorting to the courts but the GMC insists on spending money. Well, I suspect we shall see what the IC has to say about the above. I believe those who pay their subs have a right to see what the GMC are doing on their behalf. They have the right to see how much of their hard earned finances are being thrown down the drain due to the GMC's arrogance.