Dr Myhill’s complaint to GMC about PACE authors.

Obviously they will call in experts, to provide expert opinion to do so.

Imagine the savings in both time and money when they decide that the only experts with the relevant expertise are themselves.

This would appear to be the way that they do things so why would this case be any different?
 
Seven said:
What does this means? Sorry not sure if it is my English.
Click to expand...
I take it to mean that the GMC has been told to produce the written evidence showing why they didn't investigate the PACE authors.

If they can't show with written evidence that there was a correct procedure followed, then Myhill will take the GMC to court for not carrying out a proper investigation.
 
Seven said:
What does this means? Sorry not sure if it is my English.
Click to expand...
I had to read it twice myself @Seven, because the wording can at first glance seem ambiguous.

I've reworded slightly from ...

"If there is no evidence base, then I will take the decision not to investigate the PACE authors to the High Court for a Judicial Review."

... to ...

"If there is no evidence base, then I will take the [GMC's] decision (to not investigate the PACE authors) to the High Court for a Judicial Review."

Hope that helps a bit.
 
BRIEF SUMMARY
The ICO has determined that the GMC was in breach of the FOIA when it failed to give proper reasons to me as to why it determined not to investigate the PACE authors. The GMC now has 35 calendar days to provide the evidence base for its refusal to investigate the PACE authors or to state that it has no evidence base. If it does not, it will be held in contempt of court. If it transpires that there is no evidence base for the GMC’s decision not to investigate the PACE authors, then I will take that decision to the High Court for Judicial Review.
Click to expand...

WOW!
 
Merged thread

Dr Sarah Myhill: Update on Dr Myhill's complaint to the GMC about the PACE authors

https://www.drmyhill.co.uk/wiki/My_Complaint_to_the_GMC_about_the_PACE_authors

20 JANUARY 2020 UPDATE AND SUMMARY OF EVENTS SO FAR
  • I complained about the PACE authors to the GMC
  • After much time passing, the GMC issued a decision notice stating that it was not going to investigate the PACE authors
  • I made a Freedom of Information Act data request, requiring that the GMC release their reasons for not investigating the PACE authors
  • The GMC replied with a short opinion-based document, with no evidence base
  • I made a second Freedom of Information Act data request, requiring that the GMC either release the evidence base for their decision or admit that no evidence base actually existed
  • The GMC replied and stated that they considered that they had complied with this second Freedom of Information Act data request within the document supplied as above
  • I wrote to the Information Commissioner’s Office asking that they review the GMC’s insistence that it had complied with my second data request
  • On 1 October, [see below] the ICO upheld my point of law and put a Decision Notice on the GMC requiring that they either release the evidence base for their decision not to investigate the GMC or that they state that there is no such evidence base.
  • The GMC appealed against the above ICO Decision Notice to force such disclosure
  • In a turnaround of logic, the ICO accepted this GMC appeal
  • I appealed against the ICO decision to accept the GMC’s appeal against the original Decision Notice
  • The ICO has accepted my appeal against their decision as noted directly above
  • I will appear in person at a Hearing [Myhill versus ICO]. I will update you on when and where this will take place.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom