G20 pathologist 'irresponsible' over other PMs
Updated on 25 August 2010
Dr Freddy Patel, the pathologist who ruled Ian Tomlinson died of natural causes at the G20 protests, behaved "irresponsibly" in other post-mortems. Home Affairs Correspondent Andy Davies says this GMC ruling will badly damage his credibility.
The General Medical Council (GMC) disciplinary panel, said that Dr Freddy Patel, who ruled that Ian Tomlinson died of a heart attack at the G20 protests, failed to identify marks on the body of a five-year-old girl which suggested she had been violently attacked prior to her death.
The panel said the conduct of Dr Patel, 63, was "irresponsible" and not of the standard expected of a Home Office registered pathologist.
He was also said to have behaved in a way which was liable to bring the profession into disrepute when he changed the cause of a woman's death to satisfy her family.
Questions over Ian Tomlinson inquest
For an experienced pathologist to have been found so lacking in professional competence is a rare occurrence, writes Channel 4 News Home Affairs Correspondent Andy Davies:
But for that pathologist to have been regarded previously by the Home Office as one of the best in the business is striking, to say the least.
This case is important not least because it was Dr Freddy Patel whose supposed expertise would play such a pivotal role in what would become one of the most controversial cases involving the police in recent years, namely the death of Ian Tomlinson during the G20 protests in London in April last year.
Dr Patel was the first to examine Mr Tomlinson's body and said that he'd died of natural causes. But two subsequent post-mortem examinations by different pathologists found that he'd died of internal bleeding as a result of blunt force trauma to the abdomen.
It was this conflict in medical assessments which led the CPS last month to conclude, controversially, that there was no realistic prospect of convicting the officer pictured striking Mr Tomlinson of manslaughter.
The inquest into Mr Tomlinson's death is likely to see Dr Patel called to give evidence. Given today's damning findings against the pathologist, Dr Patel's credibilty, said one criminal lawyer today, is likely to be badly damaged in the eyes of any jury.
It may also prove awkward for the Coroner Prof Paul Matthews whose decision it was to assign Dr Patel to the case in the first place.
Chairman of the GMC panel Richard Davies said Dr Patel's report into the death of the five-year-old girl, who had been admitted to hospital with a head injury following what was said to be a "serious fall", gave no details of so-called "marks of violence".
In Dr Patel's report he said there was no "significant" marks of violence. Dr Patel told the panel that this meant there were no marks relevant to the child's death.
Mr Davies said: "If there were no significant marks of violence in your view, by implication there were some marks of violence.
Evidence was shown to the panel that indicated marks which had been visible to the naked eye. However, Dr Patel did not identify them in his report of 17 September 2002. He also failed to comment on their possible significance.
Mr Davies said the panel considered it "probable" that Dr Patel "performed only a cursory external examination of the body".
"Had you acted differently, it is possible that you might have probed marks above the scapula (shoulder blade) which was later shown to be injured," he added.
Tomlinson family 'not surprised'
Mr Tomlinson's family said in a statement: "We are not surprised by today's announcement.
"This raises the most serious questions about how and why Freddy Patel's appointment to carry out the vital first post-mortem on Ian could have been approved by the City of London Police, who paid part of his fee.
"No family can rest with this kind of stain hanging over the investigation of their loved one and we demand answers."
The hearing was adjourned until 10am tomorrow. Dr Patel declined to speak to reporters as he left the hearing in London.
