TORTURE: Particulars of Claim - Royal Courts of Justice, London
IN THE HIGH COURT
GMC No 3608119
ROYAL COURTS OF JUSTICE, LONDON
BETWEEN:-
MR
JOSEPH ONWUDE Claimant
-and-
The GENERAL
MEDICAL COUNCIL Defendant
____________________________________________________________
TORTURE of
Mr Joseph Onwude
by
Mr Niall Dickson,
Mr Charlie Massey, Mr Anthony Omo
and
The General
Medical council
____________________________________________________________
The Parties
1.Mr Joseph
Onwude, The Croft, Warley Road, Great Warley, Brentwood CM13 3HT is the claimant who was involved in GMC
Fitness to Practice proceedings from 21/9/15 to 2/11/18. At the end of the
process on 2/11/18, Mr Onwude was found not to be impaired.
2. The defendants
are Niall Dickson (in part) and Mr Charlie Massey (in part), both CEO’s of the
General Medical Council (The GMC) and the General Medical Council of 3 Hardman
Street, Manchester M3 3AW in Onwude v GMC.
3. This Statement
of Case is in support of damages for torture by the
defendants, whose actions amounted to a civil wrong.
I] The claim that the General Medical Council maliciously
pursued 13 unfounded allegations from 21/9/2015 to 8/3/17. Five allegations were dismissed by Collins J on 8/3/17 as without
foundation.
II] The claim that the General Medical Council
maliciously pursued 8 remaining allegations from 8/3/17 to 5/6/18. One rehashed
allegation was defeated and 3
allegations were withdrawn.
III] The claim that The General Medical Council
maliciously pursued 4 remaining allegations from 5/6/18-24/10/18. Two allegations withdrawn on 24/10/18.
IV] The claim that The General Medical Council
maliciously pursued 2 allegations from 5/6/18-24/10/18. These two allegations were defeated as allegations that did not amount
to serious misconduct or impairment.
The process of
dismissing the 13 maliciously but unfounded allegations from 21/9/15 - 2/11/18
has been a physical and emotional torture by a public body with the consent or acquiescence of a public officials, both Mr.
Niall Dickson and Mr. Charlie Massey as Registrars of the General Medical
Council and another person acting in an official capacity, Mr. Anthony Omo, as
Director of Fitness to Practice Directorate of The GMC.
Torture by Mr Niall Dickson
and Mr Charles Massey and the GMC
The definition of torture as it applies to me is the act of
deliberately inflicting severe physical or psychological
suffering on someone (Mr Joseph Onwude, a registrant with The GMC) by another
(The General Medical Council), as a punishment or in order to fulfil some
desire of the torturer. These defendants
will claim that they were fulfilling the over-arching objective of the
GMC to protect the public. They ignore the overriding objective in the
Medical Act 1983, as amended in 2015, the Medical Act in force at the times of
these tortures. It specifies that when the over-arching and overriding
objectives are in conflict, the GMC must give priority to the overriding
objective.
Theme
1. The GMC inquisition was a physical torture on Mr
Joseph Onwude, a Gynaecologist from when there were 13 unfounded allegations on
21/9/15 and which finally were all
dismissed on 2/11/18 by a finding of
‘not impaired’.
He has lost his
marriage, his family, his practice, his professional reputation, his confidence
to perform surgery and his dignity:
·
Final vindication does not diminish
the association with dishonesty for a doctor;
·
Final vindication does not diminish
the association with an ‘intention to cause distress to his patients’ for a
doctor.
2. The GMC inquisition was a psychological torture
on a Gynaecologist from when there were 13 unfounded allegations on 21/9/15 and
which finally were all dismissed
on 2/11/18 by a finding of ‘not
impaired’.
He has lost his
marriage, his family, his practice, his professional reputation, his confidence
to operate and his dignity:
·
Final vindication does not diminish
the association with dishonesty for a doctor;
·
Final vindication does not diminish
the association with an ‘intention to cause distress to his patients’ for a
doctor.
Outcome
of 13 Unfounded Allegations
1. Dismissed by
Collins J: 8/3/17: Unfounded
allegations.
Allegations: ((1
& 5), (2 & 6), (4a & 8a), 12, 13))).
2. Defeated by
presentation 4-5 June 2018: Altered/rehashed allegation 12.
3. Withdrawn by
presentation 4-5 June 2018: Allegations 9, 10 and 11.
4. Withdrawn by argument
and presentation on 19 October 2018: Allegations 4b and 8b.
5. Defeated by
presentation by 2/11/18: Allegations 3 and 7.
6. Upheld by presentation by 2/11/18: Allegation 14:
Serious misconduct was concluded.
Conclusion
at stage 2 of GMC Fitness to Practice Hearings
Mr Joseph Onwude was found not to be impaired (attached).
Two warnings were applied to his registration (attached).
Background to Torture
Between 2008 and 2013, 28 doctors committed suicides during
Fitness to Practice hearings. The General Medical Council’s explanation was
that doctors needed to be more resilient, and recommended this training at
medical school level (Horsfall, 2014). However Parliament chose to make the GMC
more responsible by altering the statute in 2015.
Previously The Medical Act 1983 (as amended in 2002) had no
requirement for fairness or justness.
Priory superior jurisprudence at the ECHR 1998 enshrined
the principle of fairness in Article 6. Similarly, the Civil Procedure Rules
1998 (CPR 1.1), a part of the Law of the UK enshrined the principle of justness
in proceedings in the UK.
Parliament added these two ‘overarching objectives’ of the
European Union and the United Kingdom environment in which doctors were
committing suicides during Fitness to Practice investigations as an ‘over-ridding
objective’ in The Medical Act 1983 in 2015.
23D: The overriding objective
of the General Council in exercising the power to make rules under paragraph
19F or 19G is to secure that Medical Practitioners Tribunals and Interim Orders
Tribunals deal with cases fairly and justly; and where the General Council consider that there is a conflict between
meeting the objective under this paragraph and the over-arching objective, they
must give priority to meeting the objective under this paragraph.
Schedule 4 (1B) reiterates this primary objective when the issue is
‘warnings’ (1A)
(1B) Where
the General Council consider that there is a conflict between meeting the
objective under sub-paragraph (1A) and the over-arching objective, they must
give priority to meeting the objective under sub-paragraph (1A).
Legal
Framework
1. UNITED NATIONS COVENTION AGAINST TORTURE
The United
Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment came into
force in June 1987.
Article 1
For the purposes of this Convention,
the word "torture" means any
act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or
mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or punishing him for an act he or a
third person has committed or
is suspected of having committed, or
intimidating or coercing him or
for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the
instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public
official [Mr Niall Dickson and Mr Charlie Massey] or other person acting
in an official capacity [Mr Anthony Omo]. It does not include pain or
suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
2. The
Rome Statute, which
established the International Criminal Court (ICC), provides for criminal prosecution of individuals
responsible for genocide, war
crimes, and crimes against humanity. The statute defines torture as "intentional
infliction of severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, upon a
person or under the control of the accused.
Under Article 7 of the statute, torture may be considered a crime against
humanity "when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack
directed against any civilian population (UK doctors), with knowledge of the attack".
Article 8 of the statute provides that
torture may also, under certain circumstances, be prosecuted as a war crime.
3. TORTURE (DAMAGES) ACT, 2009
Action for damages for torture
(1) A person who commits torture, wherever committed,
shall be liable to an action for damages in civil proceedings.
1(3)
In this Act, references to damages shall
include aggravated and exemplary damages and damages for loss of income.
1(5)
In this Act references to a person shall include a State, meaning any foreign
or commonwealth State (including the United Kingdom); and references to a State
include references to—
(d)
where the act or omission constituting the torture is carried out by an entity
which is distinct from the executive organs of the government and capable of suing and being sued, that
entity which will be considered a State for the purposes of this Act where the
act or omission in question is done by it in the exercise of sovereign
authority.
1(6) Where an action is commenced under this Act, a
defendant shall not be entitled to claim immunity.
Meaning of Torture under the Act (section )
Section 4(1): A person acting
in an official capacity, whatever his nationality, commits torture if in the
United Kingdom or elsewhere he intentionally inflicts severe pain or suffering
on another in the performance or purported performance of his duties.
Section 4(4): It is immaterial whether the pain or
suffering is
(a) physical or psychological; or
(b) caused by an act or omission.
Limitation
Section 4(6): Notwithstanding anything in the Limitation Act 1980 (c.
58), an action for damages under the Torture and Damages Act 2009 in respect of
torture may be brought at any time within the period of six years beginning
with the date when it first became
reasonable practicable for the person concerned to bring an action.
Potential GMC Justification for Torturing a Registrant
Section 4(5):
A] An act or omission does not constitute torture for the purposes of
this Act if the pain and suffering they inflicted thereby arises only as a
result of sanctions which are held lawful under international law.
Damages
Damages are recoverable for
torture.
Torture
is a civil wrong for which damages in money are legitimate claims.
A. Compensatory Damages
Compensatory damages are further categorized into special
damages (or Pecuniary
damages), which are
economic losses such as loss of earnings, property damage and medical
expenses, and general damages, which are noneconomic
damages such as pain and suffering and emotional distress.
a.
Special damages (or Pecuniary Damages)
·
Loss of Reputation Damage
o SA302
to 5/4/14 Income £678,098
o SA302
to 5/4/15 Income £12,505 £665,593
o SA302
to 5/4/16 Income £182,863 £495,235
o SA302
to 5/4/17 Income £000 £678,098
o SA302
to 5/4/18 Income £150,000 £528,098
o SA302
to 5/4/19 Income £150,000 £528,098
o SA302
to 5/4/19 Income £150,000 £528,098
£3,423,220.00
b. Non-Pecuniary or General
Damages
These are damages that arise from pain, suffering and
emotional distress. This is a reconised category of damage, endorsed by the
Court of Appeal in Simmonds v Castle [2013] 1 WLR 1239 CA, with an uplift in
awards when the arrangements are on a conditional fee basis.
Claim
for pain, suffering and emotional distress (3
years) £1,500,000.00
B. Exemplary damages
Punitive damages for either the GMC’s wilful malicious, fraudulent or grossly reckless acts:
·
Malicious acts:
Experts reports from inexpert experts
for payment;
·
Fraudulent acts: high court
misrepresentation on 11/7/14:
o Miss
Rachel Ellen Morris of the GMC maliciously misrepresented the GMC expert report
of Dr Dennis Cox (12/7/13) in the High Court by changing the words ‘venous
ulcer’ to ‘ulcer’ when this word appeared 26 times in the expert report.
o Miss
Rachel Ellen Morris of the GMC was in receipt of Mr James Frame, a consultant
Plastic surgeon who categorically excluded a venous ulcer;
o Miss
Rachel Ellen Morris of the GMC was in receipt of Mr Joseph Onwude’s response
that a pre-tibial leg ulcer was what the patient had and not a venous ulcer.
o
The
Rachel Ellen Morris of the GMC altered Dr. Cox’s "Expert" Report of 12.7.13 to keep me ‘suspended’ from
clinical practice for a further 10 months. This application succeeded but on false
sworn testimony of Rachel Ellen Morris of the GMC.
o
On
2/6/15, the GMC issues a skeleton argument
“In particular, the Claimant (the GMC) is no longer
relying on Dr Cox’s Expert Report, in so far as it relates to the Defendant’s
treatment of patient A’s leg ulcer”.
·
Grossly reckless
acts:
o Recklessness
with Allegations
§ 14
Allegations on 21/9/15, one allegation admitted;
§ Erasure
on the basis of 14 allegations proved 15/12/16.
§ Five
of 13 allegations unfounded on 8/3/17 at Section 40 Appeal.
§ Three
of 8 allegations withdrawn on 5/6/18 [five remaining]
§ Two
of 5 allegations withdrawn on 24/10/18 [three remaining].
§ Three
allegations defeated.
§ 2/11/19:
No allegations remaining.
o Disregard
of statute in force: The Medical Act 2015.
§ Complicit
failure to be fair and just per statute;
§ Complicit
failure to intervene when the legal assessor became aware that the rules had
been breached [settlement agreement evidence] per legal assessors statute 2015;
§ Complicit
failure to intervene when the legal assessor became aware that the rules had
been breached [recall of witness] per legal assessors statute 2015
§ Complicit
failure stop the hearings when Article 6.3 HRA was breached.
o Disregard
of Rules in force:
§ GMC
FTP Rules of Council 2014.
§ Use
of the Ghosh test for dishonesty when this was under legal pressure. This was
overruled soon after.
§ Use
of Sanctions Guidance 2015 which was not in force because it suited the end
point instead of the Indicative Sanctions Guidance 2009 which was in force but
did not suit the endpoint of immediate suspension at erasure without calling
for submission by the registrant.
o Wilful
and bold breaches of Human rights acts
§ Article
3, HRA 1998: Right not to be tortured;
§ Article
6.1, HRA 1998: Right to a fair trial;
§ Article
6.3, HRA 1998: Right to rely defense witnesses;
Claim
for exemplary Damages
£1,500,000.00
Total Claims:
£6,423,220.00
Attachments
1. Allegation
on 21/9/15
2. Record of Determinations
on 16/12/16
3. Transcript
of Section 40 appeal on 8/3/17 [CO/212/2017]
4. Judgement of
Onwude v GMC [2017] EWHC 601 (admin)
5. Order of
Collins J 30/3/17
6. Order of
Lord Justice Flaux on second appeal at CoA in Onwude v GMC [CO/2017/0858] of
10/1/18.
7. Transcript
of MPTS Preliminary Hearing 4-5/6/18
8. Judgement of
MPTS Preliminary Hearing 5/6/18
9. Letter to Mr
Peter Mant: Misleading the High Court on Behalf of the GMC 19/10/18
10. Withdrawal
of allegations 4b and 8b by GMC on advice of Mr Peter Mant 24/10/18
11. Transcript
of MPTS Hearing of remitted Allegations 28/10/18- 2/11/18
12. Record of Determinations following MPTS Hearing of
remitted Allegations 28/10/18- 2/11/18.
Comments
Post a Comment