How they lied on oath against me

You may have seen from the press a high profile case where someone has been released from jail pending a re-trial following his appearance at the Court of Appeal. There was a clear miscarriage of justice.

I really felt for him. I had a very similar thing happen to me. The only good thing was that I was never imprisoned.

You may have seen In the Name of the Father and viewed the scene at the end where it emerged that the police had knowingly and deliberately withheld evidence that, if disclosed to the defence, would have resulted in them being cleared. The same happened to me.

My name is James Bond, formerly known as Sushant Varma. I have to raise some £200,000 to fund a private prosecution againstthose who gave false evidence against me. The four most serious are Ms. Fiona Hawker- the lawyer who investigated and prosecuted me. Mr. Robert Page the former Undergraduate dean of the University of Sheffield medical school and Dr G Murphy former medical director of Halton hospital. That said every doctor who gave evidence against me at the General Medical Council and the Liverpool Employment Tribunal either lied on oath or withheld vital information. I detail the most blatant- Dr David Graham- below.

I was a medical student at the University of Sheffield. I qualified by taking my exams externally via the United Examining Board licensing exam. I was never going to pass from Sheffield. One of my previous consultants wrote a report saying “It appears to me that some people do not want him to carry on his medical studies.” Even my local MP Richard Allan expressed concern in his letter of 19th July 1999.

The most damning was in September 1999. The Student British Medical Journal asked me to write an article on why I thought students should have their papers back once marked. They asked Professor Weetman- the dean of the medical school- to write an article saying why students should not have their papers back once marked. As soon as he found out I was writing the proposing article he demanded to see mine. He was obviously afraid I was going to tell the public about my dispute with the department of psychiatry.

Actually, there was one more damning event. In 2005 the Steel Press- the student Union newspaper was going to run a story on me. However if you see this email from their editor you can see that the vice chancellor threatened to shut down the Steel Press if they printed it.

After I qualified in 2001 the University tried to have my external qualification taken off me and they even referred me to the General Medical Council (the doctor’s regulatory body.) This resulted in a meeting on 3 September 2001 and as you can see I was cleared.

I was excluded from practice on 14th May 2002- they got a whiff of an allegation of fraud with regards the UEB exam. The hospital never followed the procedure. On 15th November 2002 I was formally suspended. Then my disciplinary hearing was on 27th March 2003. It was adjourned because my solicitor was ill. One week later I found out that without hearing my side of the story the hospital had referred me to the General Medical Council (GMC.)

I resigned my post the day of the reconvened hearing on 15th May 2003.

It took the GMC until 8th April 2005. to charge me and the primary allegation was the UEB.

In June of that year (2005) the GMC decided to take the case to a hearing.They instructed Fiona Hawker of Mills and Reeve solicitors.

My gripe with Fiona Hawker

This letter shows that Ms. Hawker had my full university file. It’s reasonable to assume that she also had my full GMC file. On both files was the document detailing the minutes of the meeting of 3 September 2001 where the Professor Catto, then chair of the GMC education division cleared me.

She should have dropped that allegation.

The 2nd most serious allegation was one of saying that Dr Murphy lied at the inquest into the late Sarah Jane McNicholas in 2001. At the time Dr Murphy was under investigation for instructing his lawyers to give false information to that inquest. In legal terms they are the same thing. She should have dropped that allegation.

On a more trivial note she prosecuted me for falsely saying that the Times Higher was going to run a story on me. This extract of the Mills and Reeve website at the time shows that the Times Higher had run an article on me.

She was grossly dishonest.

Being a GMC prosecutor she would have known of the case of Giele vs GMC 14th October 2005. In this case an erasure from the medical register was quashed on the grounds of procedure and inordinate delay. She would have known of Aziz, R (on the application of) v General Medical Council [2005] EWHC 2695 (Admin) (28 October 2005.) In his case a sanction of a 2 month suspension from the medical register was quashed on the grounds of inordinate delay.

She should have dropped the entire case against me.

In February 2006 the GMC decided to take no action against Dr David Herbert a junior doctor who went out one night, got drunk, caused the death of a member of the public through drink driving and got a criminal conviction. It was because of the length of a long suspension on his career.

During my GMC hearing it came out that I am on the GMC top ten hitlist

My panel ruled that the delay was inordinate,inexcusable and unjustifiable.

My defence body then abandoned me mid hearing. I got new counsel and we reconvened for September 2006. He was useless. We asked for a new panel and I submitted written evidence to rebut the allegations against me. However you can see they refused to read it.

On 19th September 2006 the GMC struck me off- largely because of an allegation of a fraudulent application to sit the UEB exam in April/May 2001. Yet on 21 December 2006 they were forced to reveal the memos dated 7 and 8 August 2001 saying that since the UEB had not complained there were no grounds for the GMC to get involved. See the GMC letter of 21st December 2006.

On the GMC were forced to reveal that these documents were not disclosed to me see their email of 28th December 2006.

Ms. Hawker had these documents. Why did she fail to give them to the defence?

My gripe with Mr. Page

Mr. Page was asked to provide evidence of an allegation of a fraudulent entry to sit the UEB exam. If there was any chance that Ms. Hakwer didn’t see the 3 September 2001 document Mr. Page should have told her that they had made a referral to the GMC and I had been cleared. He didn’t. If you go to this website you can see how dishonest Mr. Page was. He produced a witness statement to support an allegation of fraud but he never mentioned the minutes of the meeting of 3 September 2001 where I was cleared.

My gripe with Dr Murphy

Murphy told my panel-on oath- that he did not give false information to the inquest of Sarah Jane McNicholas in 2001.

However in his witness statement to the GMC he failed to mention one vital piece of information.

Sometime in 2000 the Health Service Ombudsman published a report into the death of the late Sarah Jane McNicholas called Errors in the care and treatment of a young woman with diabetes. That report states “All those complained about accepted the Ombudsman’s findings, apologised for the shortcomings revealed by the investigations, and agreed to implement the following recommendations made by him.” The report is scathing.

Soon afterwards there was a meeting at the McNicholas home between the family, Dr Murphy and the Chief Executive of the hospital. It was tape recorded without the knowledge of Dr G J Murphy. Mr. McNicholas asked Dr Murphy a direct question if the hospital accepted the findings of the report. Dr Murphy said the hospital did.

At a directions hearing of the inquest HM Coroner for Cheshire asked counsel for the hospital if the findings of the report were accepted by the hospital. Counsel took instruction. It came out that Dr Murphy told his solicitor to tell counsel that the hospital did not accept such findings and never told the McNicholas family this.

In April 2002 the McNicholas family complained to the GMC about this as per the witness statement by former Military Police Officer Mike McNicholas.

In June 2011 the GMC found him guilty of this in the case of GMC vs. Dr G J Murphy and he admitted to it. Clearly he perjured myself at my hearing.

My gripe with David Graham

Graham was my postgraduate dean. Under the rules at the time the postgraduate dean must authorise the suspension of a junior house officer.

A house officer who graduated in the same year as me, who did her internship at the same time as me killed a patient with lethal dose of potassium chloride and was not suspended.

I was excluded from practice on grounds that even the hospital’s lawyer said were trivial even if combined and true.

You can see what my ward manager thought of me.

You can also see what one of my consultants thought of me. Consider this on the night 2 October 2001 the locum Senior house officer had not shown up. At the last minute the consultant on call- Dr Khaleeli- authorised that I step in and act as SHO. Under the law a doctor can only do an SHO post after successfully completing a one year junior house officer post. At the time I had only done two months! This is about as illegal as you can get.When I put the pay claim in the following day the Medical Staffing officer went bananas because the hospital had broken the law. This letter from Mike Swift confirms I did the SHO locum.

Two months later my consultant, Dr Williams, allowed both my middle grade doctors to go on holiday at the same time for a week leaving me with only Dr Williams to cover. Several times that week he was outside the hospital. The rules say that you can only get a junior to do such things if you are absolutely confident in their ability to do the job.

This other JHO killed a patient and was not suspended. in fact she underwent retraining with Dr Williams! At the last minute at the Liverpool Employment Tribunal Graham submitted handwritten statement saying he did not authorise my suspension. The tribunal chair believed him. A month later Graham put in a costs claim. I reported him to the police for perjury. I showed told the police of the hospital’s notice of appearance to the tribunal denying a non contractual suspension i.e. they said it was fully contractual. If that were the case then Graham fully authorised it. If that were the case Graham committed perjury. Before you could say Bob’s your uncle Graham dropped the costs claim. He knew that if the costs hearing had gone ahead and I brought that up he was looking at a prison sentence.

That was in 2004- the police have still to take action.

References Emma Thompson Best Performance https://youtu.be/09FQmZVd3aM