2
2
2
Despite prolonged and energetic support from the Society of Clinical Psychiatrists and my Member of Parliament, an appeal was never able to progress. Legal advice had been that a Judicial Review would have a good chance of succeeding, but that route was precluded by costs considerations: "Any costs you incur are at your own risk".
Years on, accompanied by an experienced forensic psychologist at a brief meeting with an official of the Lord Chancellor's Department, concerns were reiterated, but discussion of the dismissal decision was explicitly disallowed because "the decision of the Lord Chancellor is not subject to appeal".
One is left wondering why such an extreme course of action was taken, and in such a secretive manner. However the most relevant aspect may be that during the frustrated correspondence I had seen fit to lodge a formal complaint against the Regional Chairman. To the best of my knowledge this complaint against a Judge was never dealt with.
It is suggested that this experience reflects a classic case of abuse of power.
There has to be a better way of checking apparent unfairness and similarly to resolve problems that are amenable to quick and obvious solutions. In the current climate of supposedly greater openness by Government, this paper is presented as an example of why this is so necessary. What else could have been done to get to the truth?
" I would now advise anyone not to bring up a problem in a hospital because they will be disciplined..." (Radiologist sacked after reporting his discovery of thousands of unreported X-rays in a leading London teaching hospital)
Hospital Doctor, December 2007
"If ever you want to hold power accountable, you need access to the documents"
Judge Sachs; The Guardian, 2006
"Information is the currency of democracy - - A citizen's fundamental right to know is the rule, while secrecy is the exception."
http://www.opengovernment.org/foia/
Dr Woolf's full article is at http://www.scp08.co.uk
1 | 2
