Drs Southall, Samuels, Spencer Currently Face the GMC. The GMC has admitted to violating their human rights but continues with the case 
United Kingdom of Great Britain & N. Ireland (Press Release) May 29, 2008 --
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.
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.
Refer to http://www.nhsexposed.com
http://www.nhsexposedblog.blogspot.com
http://www.henshallhearing.blogspot.com
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.
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.
Refer to http://www.nhsexposed.com
http://www.nhsexposedblog.blogspot.com
http://www.henshallhearing.blogspot.com
Email
Print
SPAM
