Dr Freddy Patel Strikes Again!

As you may remember Dr Freddy Patel was that pathologist who carried out the initial autopsy on Ian Tomlinson, the man who died at the G20 protests in London in April 2009. Dr Patel soon became a figure of derision after it emerged that he'd failed to notice that Mr Tomlinson's abdomen was full of blood as a result of blunt force trauma and concluded that the death was a result of pre-existing coronary artery disease leading to cardiac arrest. It then emerged that this was not Dr Patel's first time dealing with a controversial case.

In 1999 he carried out the autopsy on Roger Sylvester a 30 year old schizophrenic man who died after being restrained by the police. After concluding that Mr Sylvester had died as a result of pre-existing coronary artery disease leading to cardiac arrest Dr Patel was reprimanded by the General Medical Council for giving false and misleading information about the case. In 2002 Dr Patel carried out the autopsy of a woman who had died suddenly in a strangers flat. Although the body showed head injuries, extensive bruising and a bite mark to the woman's inner thigh Dr Patel ruled the death to be as a result of pre-existing coronary artery disease resulting in cardiac arrest. After Dr Patel's ruling of natural death led to the case being closed the male occupant of the flat went on to murder and dismember two other women.

Although Dr Patel has already cemented his reputation as possibly the worst pathologist to ever disgrace the profession it appears he's been at it again. In October 2006 Sandra Allen, a 61 year old schizophrenic woman, was detained in a North London psychiatric hospital under section 3 of the Mental Health Act 1983. At 00:05 on the morning of October 2nd Mrs Allen was observed repeatedly stuffing sandwiches into her mouth as part of an apparent manic episode. In spite of this she was allowed to return, unaccompanied, to her room. At 00:15 Mrs Allen was discovered, by Nurse Deborah Chamber, on the floor of the room's toilet, she was apparently not breathing. Nurse Chamber immediately called for assistance and attempted to clear Mrs Allen's airway but crucially did not begin to administer cardio-pulmonary resuscitation (CPR). Within 5 minutes the hospitals Senior House Officer, Dr R Patel, arrived on the scene and again attempted to clear food from Mrs Allen's airway before finally attempting CPR. An ambulance eventually attended the scene after being delayed for an indeterminate length of time at the hospital gates by a security guard who had fallen asleep at his post. Upon arrival the ambulance crew used specialist equipment to remove food from Mr Allen's airway and began advanced resuscitation before transporting her to Whittington Hospital where Mr Allen was pronounced dead at 00:55.

On October 5th Dr Freddy Patel performed Mrs Allen's autopsy and despite being informed of the fact by two doctors and a nurse was unable to find any evidence that the deceased's airway had been blocked by food and concluded that Mr Allen's death was caused by, you've guessed it, pre-existing coronary artery disease leading to cardiac arrest.

As a direct result of Dr Freddy Patel's diagnosis of death by natural causes the investigating coroner, Dr Reid, was able to rule that article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (article 2) did not apply in the case so there was no need for an independent inquiry and no need for the inquest to be held in front of a jury. Initially Mrs Allen's family launched a legal challenge to this decision that was rejected on the strength of Dr Patel's evidence so the inquest went ahead without a jury and without the families involvement. Within a matter of days the coroner, Dr Reid, concluded that the lack of supervision on the ward was not relevant to the death, the failure of ward staff to administer CPR was not relevant to the death and the delay in getting an ambulance to the scene was not relevant to the death so he ruled that Mrs Allen's death was a completely natural event that the hospital staff could have done nothing to prevent.

Since then Mrs Allen's family have been involved in a long and arduous legal campaign to have a judicial review held into the legal decisions made in that initial coroner's inquest with a view to having the case re-opened. This lead to the application being heard by the Law Lords/Queen's Bench, the highest court in the land which owe more to Iran's Guardian Council then it does to America's Supreme Court. On June 25th 2009 the Law Lords returned an interesting verdict on the application. While they ruled that the initial judges decision had no basis in law and that Article 2 most certainly did apply in the case meaning that the in initial inquest had not be carried out in accordance with the law they found no reason to grant a judicial review or re-open the case. The family have been given leave to appeal this peculiar decision but have been informed that they won't receive legal aid to do so.

I have been following this case for a number of years and have been seen to follow it. As recently as three months ago it seemed to be going nowhere with little chance of being heard before the Law Lords. Then six weeks ago matters suddenly picked up pace with the Law Lords announcing that they would hear the application and all interested parties were invited to a series of meetings at the House of Lord, Britain upper chamber of Parliament. Unfortunately the Lords were unable or unwilling to meet my appearance fee so I did not attend but the impression that I got was if I were to help Britain by leading Iran's Green Revolution then the Law Lords would find in the Allen family's favour. Of course that couldn't possibly be true because if it was then it would mean that rather then being made in accordance with principles of Law or Justice the decisions of Britain's highest court are made in accordance with the older and more informal principle of graft. That would mean that their rulings can only be considered illegitimate