|
JUSTICE of the PEACE Volume
167 No 38 p. 711
COMMENT
Openness
Denied -
Excessive
Government Secrecy?*
(A letter updating the personal experience of Dr P. Grahame Woolf,
medical member of the Mental Health Review Tribunal 1966-1998)
Sudden, unexpected dismissal
from medical membership of the Mental Health Review Tribunal (MHRT) after making
a complaint about one of its Regional Chairmen, prompted a wide ranging
exploration of disciplinary arrangements in public service settings ("Discipline
in Public Service - a psychiatrist's perspective" (Justice of Peace,
Vol.163, No.26, June 26, 1999) also at
http://www.scpnet.com/).
MHRT hearings are, of their essence, forums for disputation between detaining
authorities and mentally disturbed patients deprived of their civil liberty so,
inevitably, complaints about the conduct of hearings, and disagreements with
Decisions do arise, but they are usually resolved informally.
Openness is paramount and
axiomatic in those proceedings, and it is enjoined upon MHRT panels to bear in
mind natural justice, -rules of evidence and due legal process, and to provide
"Reasons for Reasons" for their Decisions, which are then distributed to all
parties. An unsatisfied applicant's situation would be explored again at a
subsequent Hearing in the reasonably near future.
Despite some
(non-retrospective) changes at my instigation, Tribunal M.embers remain
vulnerable to arbitrary disciplinary measures; they appreciate that their
appointments may be terminated at any time without reason stated, but resent
this as a situation unacceptable in the new millennium. It leaves open the door
to abuse of power at various levels, exemplified better perhaps by an individual
experience than by unverifiable generalities.
After very long service, I was
suspended twice by a then new Regional Chairman -
(repeat suspensions are recognized by the Society of Clinical
Psychiatrists as a warning red light and indicator of the need for special
investigation). I have never seen any documents which could possibly have
justified such a professionally and personally damaging course of action on
either occasion.
The substance of a lengthy
"whistle blowing" complaint to the Lord Chancellor about those events, prepared
with assistance from specialist lawyers, was forwarded with my permission to the
Regional Chairman concerned at the Lord Chancellor's Department's request; there
was no hint that theirs was a non-reciprocal request and that I might never be
allowed to see, or respond to, any of the correspondence. A curt, unappeallable
dismissal from my appointment was received from the Lord Chancellor, instead of
a more usual and appropriate letter of thanks upon retirement.
Substantive replies to my own
complaint had been promised to me repeatedly, but have never been forthcoming;
the correspondence involved numerous signatories from the two Departments, but
their letters were consistently evasive and uninformative. Face to face meetings
were requested repeatedly but never arranged.
My dismissal had been prompted
by an allegedly "privileged" letter which I have never seen. Upon advice from
the Lord Chancellor's legal advisers, it was not disclosed to me, nor to those
advising me, thereby denying any opportunity to defend myself effectively. Nor
was I allowed to see the personal file later held by the succeeding Regional
Chairman, who contended that it was likewise "privileged"; I have been assured
that, surprisingly, it contains none of the documents one might expect relating
to complaints about me!
It was long claimed by the
former Lord Chancellor's office that the non-disclosures to the subject himself
were covered by the Data Protection Act 1998 (sch.7, para A). It was hard to
comprehend that Parliament's intention would have been to cover circumstances
such as those summarized here, and developed in the original paper.
The newly created Department
for Constitutional Affairs has reviewed that issue and confirmed, after all,
that disclosure of the documents concerned is discretionary and that the civil
servants had been mistaken. None of the relevant documents had been subject to
the Data Protection Act! However, that provided scant comfort, because they have
reaffirmed the refusal to disclose any of the documents requested, falling back
instead upon the non-statutory Code of Practice on Access to Government
Information; refusing my requests under exemption 8 of the Code (public
employment, public appointments and honours).
The Society of Clinical
Psychiatrists and its Suspensions Group have expressed dismay that the pillars
of our justice system seem to have been systematically overlooked in this case,
basic openness denied and correspondence over some seven years marked by
prevarication, delay and error; a situation which can, without hyperbole, be
properly characterized as Kafkaesque.
P. Grahame Woolf
FRC Psych
Consultant Psychiatrist
| 