Document Extraction

Be Daring.

Disclosure from various places while you are up shit creek without a paddle is an interesting escapade. The important thing to remember is that no lawyer is going to bother about harvesting evidence. That is my experience anyway. Fishing is your job.

I was going to discuss Section 10 of the Data Protection Act but have decided to revert back to ways of obtaining disclosure from the opposition. I felt we needed a middle chapter before discussing correction of data. We have already discussed the Data Protection Act, now its time to discuss some case law.

The General Medical Council has a habit of non disclosure. You have to request the material you require. It is important to understand that all the GMC does is recorded on a computer system called Siebel. Alarms on doctors files are also recorded on their systems.

"The GMC is currently implementing the most comprehensive and wide-ranging reform of medical regulation since it was established in 1858, and Siebel Public Sector is playing a key role in that process,” said Dave Anson, Head of Information Systems, General Medical Council. “The GMC intends to use Siebel Public Sector as its primary case management system, consolidating data concerning doctors, complaints, investigations, hearings, and medical school audits across multiple data sources and automating aspects of case workflow. This will provide the GMC with the capability to realize its vision and ambition in regulating doctors and ensuring good medical practice.”

The Data Protection Act can be used to access data held on computer. The other case law that some of us have found useful is Henshall. Henshall revolved around the non disclosure of documents by the GMC. Quoted from the case :-

Lord Denning MR's solution in R v Secretary of State for the Environment ex parte Norwich City Council [1982] QB 808, at 842G, that the common law should fill the lacuna, and to Sedley LJ's articulation in R v Camden LBC ex p Paddock CO/2817/92 at page 16 of the principle adumbrated a long time before by Lord Loreburn LC in Board of Education v Rice [1911] AC 179, at 182. “... that a decision-making body should not see relevant material without giving those affected a chance to comment on it and, if they wish, to controvert it, is fundamental to the principle of law (which governs public administration as much as it does adjudication) that to act in good faith and listen fairly to both sides is 'a duty lying upon everyone who decides anything'“

The other case of some use is Norwich Pharmacal. This can sometimes be applied to obtain the case examiner's identities. The General Medical Council often refuses the identities of decision makers. This is of course their idea of transparency. I believe I used a combination of the Data Protection Act, the FOIA and Norwich Pharmacal to obtain the identity of the screener in my 2004 case. The GMC had refused to provide her identity to the court. Indeed, the judge at the time didn't understand why this was kept a secret.

The above should be useful to both Complainant and Respondent. It practice, information harvesting takes a very long time, perhaps years. Ward 87 disclosures for instance has taken about a decade and it still isn't complete.

There is one final issue, the Limitation Act ie ability to litigate runs from the time of disclosure hence I am never in any rush to do anything. All good disclosures come to those who wait in the end. My 2004 case was constructed from data I had obtained from subject access requests to the GMC, my friends subject access request to Halton NHS Trust and my subsequent harvesting of evidence. The lawyers never made any efforts to obtain disclosures. This also applies to the MPS who has never in their entire lives obtained full disclosure of documentation related to Ward 87. They though felt able to provide a duff legal opinion on a fragment of information. I am simply providing an example of defence lawyers in action.

•