|
|
|
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
|
|
Professor Timothy David MB, ChB, PhD, MD(Bristol), FRCPCH, FRCP, DCH A Scrutiny Of His Independence As An Expert Witness Professor Timothy David is based in Manchester. He is a Consultant Paediatrician and also does expert witness work. The Guardian, reporting the appeal of Sally Clark stated, “A key defence witness at the trial, Tim David, professor of child health and paediatrics at the University of Manchester, analysed blood tests carried out on Christopher. He concluded that the child could have died of a rare lung disease, idiopathic pulmonary haemosiderosis” Mr Stephen Clark was very closely involved in this case. We can therefore conclude that there could have been an association between Mr Stephen Clark and Professor Timothy David. Following the tragic death of Sally Clark The Clark Fund was created. Sally Clark’s website states “The fund will be administered by trustees to support the specialist paediatric work of Professor Tim David at the new Manchester Childrens' Hospital”. One of the Trustees is also involved in a PR firm called Quillers hired by the Clark family [ Sue Stapely, Quiller Consultants, 11-12 Buckingham Gate, London SW1E 6LB] Professor Timothy David has also acted very closely with the General
Medical Council. He was associated with the General Medical Council in
formulating the paper “The General Medical Council's
Performance Procedures: peer review of performance in the workplace”
[Medical Education 35 (s1), 9–19. Further, Professor Timothy David was instructed by the General Medical Council to act in the complaint against Professor David Southall instigated by Stephen Clark, Sally Clark’s husband, following Southall's comments on a TV documentary about the Clark case for which Professor Tim David just happened to be an advisor. We therefore take this as a baseline in analysing whether Professor Timothy David appears to adhere to the standards of Good Medical Practice. Professor Timothy David was also instructed by the General Medical Council to act in the complaint against Professor David Southall instigated by Stephen Clark, Sally Clark’s husband. We then move onto the study regarding conflict of interest that arises generally in experts. The General Medical Council hired him again in the recent batch of serial complaints currently tried at the General Medical Council (November 2006 and November 2007). What is the nature of a conflict of interest? Mark Solon a solicitor describes the role of an expert witness. He states in a BBC article “An expert witness is someone who has specialist knowledge in a field, who is independent of a legal case and who can assist a court to come to a just decision by expressing an accurate opinion based on all the available facts . He goes onto say “Often expert witnesses start doing this type of work by chance. They are instructed on one case and gradually over time develop an ad hoc system of producing reports and going to court. They rarely get any independent appraisal of their work and learn as they go along by trial and error. They think are doing it right just because they are instructed again. This is clearly a very unsatisfactory state of affairs for clients, solicitors and courts”. It is difficult to know what is within Professor Timothy David’s mindset but it might not be unreasonable to wonder whether he should have recused himself from cases related to David Southall. A recent legal case states “Where an expert had a material or significant conflict of interest, the court was likely to decline to act on his evidence, or indeed to give permission for his evidence to be adduced. The expert should not leave undisclosed any conflict of interest which might bring into question the suitability of his evidence as the basis for the court’s decision. The conflict of interest could be of any kind, including a financial interest, a personal connection, or an obligation, for example, as a member or officer of some other body. But ultimately, the question of what conflicts of interest fell within this description was a question for the court, taking into account all the circumstances of the case. Consideration should be given to requiring an expert to make a statement at the end of his report on the following lines: (i) that he had no conflict of interest of any kind, other than any which he had disclosed in his report; (ii) that he did not consider that any interest which he had disclosed affected his suitability as an expert witness on any issue on which he had given evidence; (iii) that he would advise the party by whom he was instructed if, between the date of his report and the trial, there was any change in circumstances which affected his answers to (a) or (b) above” (Toth v Jarman). Professor Timothy David’s intricate involvement with issues related to David Southall does not stop there. For that, we intend to quote the GMC’s legal team ( Day 1 of the Clark complaint page 53-54) ” Sir, it is now time to bring Professor David into the picture. Professor David is a leading Paediatrician and Professor of Child Health and Paediatrics at the University of Manchester. He has a number of roles in this case. Firstly, he was the expert retained by all the parties in the Child A care proceedings to advise them. He wrote a report to the care court in October 1999 and, due to its contents, he was subpoenaed by the defence to appear as an expert witness for the defence in the Sally Clark criminal trial. As we have seen, he was also asked by the care court to meet Professor Southall and to report on Professor Southall’s concerns. That report is in your bundle of documents and we will come to it in a moment. In these PCC proceedings Professor David is not only a witness of fact dealing with the exchange of emails set out in head of charge 7(g), but he is also put forward as an expert to assist the Committee on two distinct areas. The first area is an expert Paediatrician with expertise in the area of child protection. The second is as an expert on the appropriate practice and procedure of medico-legal experts, so in effect he is a medico-legal expert expert, if I can put it in that way. The aspect of this case covered by head of charge 7 and head of charge 7 is the most serious head of charge in our submission, can best be dealt with by dealing in some detail with Professor David’s report to the care court which he did or prepared in September 2000” No one has admitted to any seeing any written declaration of potential conflict by Professor Timothy David. In the past, this expert has been in disagreement with the covert video surveillance methods used to detect life-threatening abuse as stated in the Lancet. Interestingly, he has also acted in opposite sides to David Southall in Family Court cases and therefore may have been antagonistic. We requested an interview with Professor Timothy David but he declined to comment. There is subsequently no denial as his contact with Penny Mellor the campaigner against David Southall. There is no confirmation that Professor Timothy David is not in contact with the Attorney General’s Office. The General Medical Council has declined to comment. We assume that the GMC have therefore turned a blind eye to this potential conflict bringing into question whether the GMC are doing enough to uphold a doctor’s rights granted under Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights – the Right to a Fair Trial. Nevertheless, in another matter related to the assessment of a potential conflict of a committee member of the GMC, the GMC found the following: The GMC’s further directive on conflict of interest within this case is listed below. A conflict of interest will arise if: • The screener or staff member has, or has had a personal or close professional relationship with the complainant or doctor. • The screener or staff member has been involved in the matters which are the subject of the complaint • There is any other factor the presence of which might reasonably cast doubt on the fairness and impartiality of YYY’s handling of the case Where a conflict, or the appearance of a conflict arises, the screener or staff member concerned must take no further part in the YYY’s consideration of the case. In the case of Professor Owen Drife which this guidance relates to the GMC stated the following. “Furthermore, the Panel notes the footnote at page 12 which states : “A conflict of interest would not necessarily arise merely because the screener or staff member happened to have heard of one of the parties to the complaint, or had had some distant professional relationship with him or her. Even in such cases, however the screener or staff member must declare an interest and ask the office or another screener for advice about whether to continue to be involved in the case.” The Panel consider that you did not abide by this clear guidance, which is mandatory. You knew Mr A, you knew adverse information about him, you had provided references for him and by that time you were aware that he was at the centre of highly publicised conduct proceedings of the most serious nature. Therefore, you had a clear conflict of interest and should have declared it. The Panel consider that you made a serious error of judgement by not doing this. The Panel was advised that you have during the course of these proceedings tendered your resignation as a member of the YYY. It is submitted on your behalf that the public can have confidence that there will be no repetition of the errors of judgment, which have been the subject of this hearing” We would therefore be grateful if the General Medical Council would consider the above as a formal complaint against Professor Timothy David immediately. Please will Professor Timothy David recuse himself from the cases related to David Southall ?
|
|
|
|
|
[Home] [NHS Exposed] [Patients] [Health Workers] [NHS in Crisis] [Legal Issues] [Media] [Helpdesk] [Public Views] All copyright remains with original authors unless otherwise stated. |
