The General Medical Council has now become infamous for violating the human rights of doctors and patients alike. The website http://www.generalmedicalcouncil.com shows the relevant case law relating to this. Recently, they have taken up the complaint of Carl and Debbie Henshall. This is a complaint that is more than a decade long. The doctors made an application for abuse of process and time delays. The GMC panel ruled that there was a violation of human rights. The GMC panel decided that despite this, they would carry on with the hearing.

There are other issues with the case such as hiring Richard Nicholson who has a conflict of interest due to his close contact with the complainants. The case continues 

The Panel considers that, once the error of the GMC’s failure to submit the
full documentation to the original screeners was realised, the case should
have attracted expeditious handling thereafter. The Panel finds that there
was a significant lack of expedition based on the delay between May 2002 and
February 2004. The GMC is not to be blamed for the delay that occurred in
resolving the judicial review applications; but, once the Court of Appeal
gave its judgment, the case again needed to be managed expeditiously, and
again the Panel is critical of the delay between the court’s judgment in
December 2005 and the service of the Notice of Hearing in April 2008. It was
already an old case and the Panel recognises the blight on the career of any
doctor to have disciplinary proceedings pending against them for such a long
time. The Panel therefore finds that there was unreasonable delay during
this period. In the circumstances, the Panel considers that there has been a
breach of Dr Spencer’s right under Article 6 of the European Convention on
Human Rights to have his case resolved within a reasonable time.


The Panel accepts that the ultrasound scans relating to Patient 6 are
missing, although the radiology reports of the scans are apparently
available. It is possible that other relevant documentation is missing in
respect of both sets of allegations. It is also possible that relevant
witnesses may not be available. The Panel further accepts that the passage
of time is likely to have had an adverse effect on the recollection of those
witnesses who are available. It bears in mind that the standards to be
applied are the standards which prevailed in the early 1990s. It recognises
the risk that the opinions of experts may be influenced by their knowledge
of current standards. It is possible that because of the passage of time the
doctor will find it more difficult to recollect events and therefore to
mount an effective defence.


The Panel considers that, once the error of the GMC’s failure to submit the
full documentation to the original screeners was realised, the case should
have attracted expeditious handling thereafter. The Panel finds that there
was a failure in this regard based on the delay between May 2002 and
February 2004. The GMC is not to be blamed for the delay that occurred in
resolving the Judicial Review applications, but once the Court of Appeal
gave its judgment, the case again needed to be managed expeditiously and
again the Panel is critical of the delay between the Court’s judgment in
December 2005 and the serving of the Notice of Hearing in April 2008. It was
already an old case and the Panel recognises the blight on the career of any
doctor to have disciplinary proceedings pending against them for such a long
time. The Panel therefore finds there was unreasonable delay during this
period. In the circumstances the Panel considers that there has been a
breach of Dr Samuels’s right under Article 6 of the ECHR, to have his case
resolved within a reasonable time.

Related Links

 http://www.nhsexposed.com

http://www.nhsexposedblog.blogspot.com

http://www.henshallhearing.blogspot.com