Browse Sections

• Education
• Roadworks
• Shipman 
  • Uncovering the Truth
  • Guilty
  • The Inquests
  • The Evidence Mounts
  • March 1998
  • Fight for Justice
  • The Inquiry
  • Making a Drama
  • The Baker Report
  • The End
• Special reports

Court clash for legal experts

18/ 7/2002

THE court challenge to stage the Shipman Inquiry in public saw four legal experts clash.

Lord Justice Kennedy and Mr Justice Jackson presided over the three-day judicial review at the High Court in London.

During that time they heard pro public arguments from families' counsel Augustus Ullstein QC and Desmond Browne QC, who represented several media companies.

Health Secretary Alan Milburn MP was represented by David Elvin QC, while inquiry chief Lord Laming's QC was Richard Gordon.

Mr Ullstein told the High Court the reasons both officials gave for denying a public inquiry and legal representation.

The court heard Alan Milburn MP wrote he wishes the inquiry to be promptly completed. Mr Ullstein added the health secretary was also wary of 'an intrusive media interest hindering information' if the inquiry was open.

Lord Laming had barred individual representation, due to the nature of the inquiry and for 'sympathy and understanding towards the relatives', the High Court also heard.

On the opening day of proceedings, Mr Ullstein told the court the government had consistently acted with 'a closed mind' against victims' wishes. Further, he believed the inquiry chief was 'under instruction from his master', Alan Milburn MP.

Mr Ullstein told the court that when Lord Laming wrote to Alan Milburn concerning the appointment of Hazel Genn and Dr Aneez Esmail, this was one of numerous occasions where he sought the health secretary's approval.

"He wasn't seeking advice, he was seeking instruction," Mr Ullstein said.

"In fact, Lord Laming is going back at every turn to seek instruction from his master, the secretary of state."

The families' counsel also declared the health secretary failed to inform relatives of any inquiry procedure of give them time to respond to decisions in the opening months of 2000.

Mr Ullstein began his day-long submission by detailing the House of Commons' Harold Shipman debate on February 1, 2000.

A statement from the shadow health secretary, Dr Liam Fox MP, was read out to the High Court.

"It will be apparent from my response to the secretary of state that I was of the view he was staging a full and open inquiry into this very serious matter," Dr Fox said.

"I believe this was the widespread opinion of both sides of the house.

"This follows Director of Public Prosecutions David Calvert-Smith telling suspected victims' families a public inquiry would be held."

In response, Mr Milburn's legal representative said their inquiry wasn't 'a sop to relatives'.

Counsel David Elvin QC made his comment when asked what purpose a swift, private inquiry had.

"It's not my submission that this inquiry will be a sop to the relatives," Mr Elvin told the High Court.

"Having regard to the purpose that the secretary of state has set out, it's to look at safeguarding members of the public."

Lord Laming's counsel, Richard Gordon QC, also said the inquiry would not be 'an emotional catharsis' for the relatives.

In response to Mr Elvin, Lord Justice Kennedy questioned why speed was an issue 'when you consider the probability that other serial killing GPs exist'.

"Even so, I fail to see why a private inquiry would be quicker than a public inquiry," Lord Justice Kennedy added.

Earlier on the second day, Mr Elvin dismissed claims - made by pro-public inquiry relatives and newspapers - that a House of Commons debate stressed the review would be held openly.

"Even if there has been a mistaken impression, it was made clear within a short period of time ... that the secretary of state didn't intend there to be a public inquiry," Mr Elvin said.

"If he (Dr Fox) was so upset, it's astonishing he hasn't tabled a question."

Mr Milburn's counsel said the health secretary had acted properly at all times.

"We don't accept that there's any general duty to consult families," he said.

"By law you have to consult for closing schools, planning matters, etc.

"The focus of this inquiry is to learn lessons - the families' role is important, but their role is evidential."

It was to be nearly three weeks before the judges returned with their decisions.