Pathologist Of G20 Death Protester Was Not Qualified To Perform Post-Mortem
A pathologist who carried out a post-mortem examination on a man who dies at the G20 protests was not qualified to carry out the procedure.
Dr Freddy Patel failed to meet the criteria to be on the Home Office register, but was still asked to work on the high profile case in which Ian Tomlinson died after being pushed over by a police officer.
Dr Patel concluded that Mr Tomlinson had died from a heart attack, but two subsequent examinations carried out by other pathologists found that he had died from internal bleeding, most likely as a result of his own elbow impacting his stomach as he fell to the ground.
The Crown Prosecution Service said in July that the conflicting evidence meant they could not charge PC Harwood with manslaughter.
A pathologist must work with a group of pathologists and have an arrangement to work with at least one police force in England or Wales to be considered eligible for inclusion on the Home Office register. Dr Patel meets neither criteria and therefore should have been removed from the register four years ago.
The Home Office issued a statement that read: “The requirement to be a member of a practice was introduced in 2006 as part of a programme of improvements. Safeguards were introduced to ensure those providing services to the police were maintaining the required standards.
“These would have identified pathologists who were working but not part of a practice. However, where a pathologist was not working for the police the safeguards would not have identified a problem.”
The doctor who carried out the second post-mortem on Mr Tomlinson said it was important that pathologists worked in groups so that errors don’t go unnoticed, particularly in cases like this one which attracted widespread media attention.
“People have to work in groups and this avoids the opportunity for baseline drift of people’s practice. They also have to be involved in peer review, so checking one another’s reports to make sure, in particular, that the evidence of fact is consistent with the conclusions,” said Dr Nat Cary.
Dr Patel’s history means he should never have been considered for such a high profile case, according to Professor Sebastian Lucas, head of histopathy at King’s College London.
“It’s a high-profile death and the pathologist appointed to do it was not up to the mark. Cases that are high-profile, with public interest, really do need to be done by people who will do a first-class job, the first time around, without second or third examinations,” said Professor Lucas.
“Dr Patel’s track record doesn’t include those characteristics.”
Dr Patel is currently facing charges of misconduct and deficient professional performance related to four separate cases at a fitness to practice hearing conducted by the General Medical Council.
Posted by Editor
on Aug 19 2010. Filed under Latest News, Lifestyle.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0.
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
