Download the Bar Standards Board judgment here. The most interesting part of the judgment is this
"Andrew Bousfield between 28 October 2007 and 23 February 2008 held himself out or allowed himself to be held out as a barrister, pursuant to paragraph 201 of the Bar’s Code of Conduct, in correspondence with MJ solicitors dated 29 October 2007, undated but around 6 November 2007 and 14 November 2007, for the purposes of supplying legal services to a member of the public, namely P, without having complied with the practising requirements in paragraphs 202(a) to 202(d) of the Bar’s Code of Conduct which by virtue of its nature, degree, repetition and/or combination with the matters set out in charge 2 was so serious as to be likely to bring the Bar into disrepute"
Many have asked me about Private Eye's Whistleblower supplement and why I was not featured. Historically, Private Eye and I have had a good relationship. Phil Hammond has always been a good and supportive friend. This was one of the reasons why I agreed to his request. He repeatedly emailed me to write Ward 87 up and asked me to pass his idea for a Whistleblower Supplement around. This, I did. Phil and I have never had a disagreement.
"Andrew Bousfield between 28 October 2007 and 23 February 2008 held himself out or allowed himself to be held out as a barrister, pursuant to paragraph 201 of the Bar’s Code of Conduct, in correspondence with MJ solicitors dated 29 October 2007, undated but around 6 November 2007 and 14 November 2007, for the purposes of supplying legal services to a member of the public, namely P, without having complied with the practising requirements in paragraphs 202(a) to 202(d) of the Bar’s Code of Conduct which by virtue of its nature, degree, repetition and/or combination with the matters set out in charge 2 was so serious as to be likely to bring the Bar into disrepute"
Many have asked me about Private Eye's Whistleblower supplement and why I was not featured. Historically, Private Eye and I have had a good relationship. Phil Hammond has always been a good and supportive friend. This was one of the reasons why I agreed to his request. He repeatedly emailed me to write Ward 87 up and asked me to pass his idea for a Whistleblower Supplement around. This, I did. Phil and I have never had a disagreement.
Later I discovered, the executive decision of Andrew Bousfield, more famously known for his vogon letter writing skills at the Bar Standards Board, and Phil Hammond [ MD] was to omit me from the main supplement as I was apparently a liability to the elite group of whistleblowers that had been chosen. Hammond had been too polite to admit this but Bousfield made it abundantly clear and I was grateful for that. That is one of the best things about Bousfield, he can't keep his pen off the paper, his hands off the laptop and he can't keep his mouth shut.
My main issue with Private Eye is that their primary copy had mentioned Dr Anders Skarsten as some heroic whistleblower. Those at Northamptonshire Mental Health Trust will know of Anders antics. Private Eye forgot to mention that Skarsten was on a 5 year GMC warning at the GMC for dishonesty on a complaint I had submitted. The doctor Skarsten supported was suspended and on a Interim Order Panel.
I was also devastated to find out that Dr Appulingham had died. Appulingham had been scapegoated for a patient death at Northamptonshire Mental Health Trust. Bousfield admitted by email to me that Skarsten had felt that he was scapegoated. Unknown to Bousfield, the GMC transcripts listed Skarsten as the inidvidual who was responsible for referring Appulingham to the GMC. Appulingham begged the GMC to see that he was scapegoated. All his pleas fell on deaf ears. The doctor dropped down dead a few weeks after his sanction. Bousfield had no sympathy for this issue at all and neither did Phil.
On hearing about Skarsten, Hammond pulled the story and offered me chocolate and a meeting - I refused each. That is Phil's default status. Of course, all Bousfield had to do was look Skarsten up on the GMC register and the internet. Any CSE bimbo could have managed that. It was even more shocking when I discovered he was a lawyer. A lawyer failed to check Skarsten's GMC status?!! I find that startling.
Nevertheless, I decided it was reckless of Private Eye to process my data as well as that of Skarsten [ given we were in conflict at the GMC]. I didn't quite understand how Private Eye had become so careless. These were the people who extracted my friend Geoff Monks out of his predicament. Anyhow, Private Eye is not sorry. I suppose they believe they can do what they wish.
These were also the reasons why I extracted the Ward 87 material from Private Eye and refused them permission to print it on their website. I felt I could not trust them any longer and overall, I believe I had been failed by Phil and his empty promises. Interestingly, it can be purchased here though. To everyone's surprise, its actually selling :). So really those who wished to shut down the Ward 87 incident actually made it widely available.
Anyway, we can now sit back and watch Private Eye steal one idea after another from the above paper and imply they came up with it :) without citation. It is also fascinating how policy makers prefer a Hello style presentation to a peer reviewed research paper published in a reputable journal. To think that policy will be made on an elite selection of tales cherry picked by some less than independent journalists without an assessment of evidence. After Skarsten, I wondered how many other stories were not quite evidence based. Anyhow, that isn't my business really. It was merely a afterthought.
I believe I should have been told by Private Eye that Andrew Bousfield was a lawyer - a non practising barrister, that his father [P Bousfield] was a whistleblower, that they had dealings with Leigh Day and that the BSB had sanctioned Bousfield. Indeed, every person should be informed of this issue and not have to search the internet. Bousfield claims he still maintains the independence that a journalist should have. I beg to differ. The rules on non practising barristers are listed here. I know Bousfield feels his sanction was unfair. You can hear him stamping his feet right now. Bousfield is adept at using the media to flaunt his innocence. Of course, innocence by media does not necessarily equate to being innocent. It is amazing how people overlook what the BSB and various judges have said.
Anyhow, I always love the level of irony in this specific tale especially running into a flamboyant character like Bousfield who assumes we mere mortals can't read law book, refers to me as "having scores to settle" when he clearly has more scores than all the world's cricket teams. The advantage of fighting the GMC is that everything else always appears so much smaller.
In the end, while I don't have a sanction, Bousfield does and in the land of hope and glory, it is Bousfield who commands the trust from the elite, Private Eye and the Independent. Quite sweet really. It is laughable when Bousfield comments on my "style" when his style is errrm............ yes, Mace and Jones have a lot to say about Bousfield.
These are the dangers of approaching the media in any way or form as a whistleblower - you never know who is handling your data and for what purpose. That was my main concern. While Hammond assumes this is all sour grapes, he fails to understand his own failings. Bousfield of course has absolutely no insight. Private Eye who have supported my friends Geoff Monks et al, has given me the message loud and clear. I wish I had known of that message some time ago then I would never have wasted my time.
The above on Private Eye is written because I believe each patient/whistleblower and member of the public should be aware of the above information before submitting their material to them. I would never have submitted the material had I known who they had hired to do the Whistleblower Supplement. To find that the magazine was discussing matters with a man who victimised me [ Skarsten] was a shock to my system. I had never expected this from a magazine I had the utmost respect for. Minor meek apologies have floated in but some disasters are just too catastrophic to correct. At present, I am not sure what company Hammond keeps but he is certainly not an independent thinker. For all those who repeatedly ask me about my long term friendship with Hammond. It ended last week for good. Bousfield had no regrets over that because now he can spin his yarns without interruption. Hammond is short sighted but then he has hardly dealt with lawyers properly. Anyhow, they have set up home together on the internet on a website called Medical Harm. I wouldn't recommend that any whistleblower disclose their data there for obvious reasons.
Bousfield tries to teach me the law. He forgets, its not rocket science to read a law book. It isn't rocket science to win an argument and no one has to be a barrister to know how to play Russian Roulette in a court casino. Bousfield is a man sanctioned by his own regulatory body who has the temerity to question my tone and style. Pot calling kettle black me thinks.
Anyhow, despite the bitter taste that was caused by Private Eye's stupidity and disrespect for me, I hope the paper we have written is useful for all working doctors, patients and members of the public. I am working on implementing the recommendations. I will leave it to members of the public to decide whether I am indeed a liability as specified by Bousfield and team. Would they believe a lawyer or a ex doctor?
I really really love this judgment by the BSB. It is a masterpiece in description of his character. Maybe the BSB should have been in Cornwall with their popcorn just for the entertainment. The practical impossibility of costs at a ET amused me somewhat. Here is part of the judgment :-
"The judgement said the "brief and, in our view, scandalous" involvement of Mr Bousfield corroborated the conduct of the claimant as "vexatious, scandalous or otherwise unreasonable".
It added: "While the actions of Mr Bousfield are clearly open to very serious criticism, we do not accept that a claimant whose prime interest was to have a fair hearing of an unfair dismissal claim would be prepared to be caught up in the personal crusade of an outsider who seemed interested only in hijacking the proceedings for his own purpose. It seems to us more probable that the claimant was happy to be party to that crusade which, in our judgement, renders the conduct of these proceedings at best unreasonable and at worst vexatious and scandalous."
Grieve may have been better off being represented by the local A Level student.
For any lawyer, victims are often useful. Whistleblowers on Medical Harm gives the website credibility and in turn some of its credibility rubs of on its owners. In the world where legal aid is scarce, publicity is scarce, anyone who is desperate enough will run into the arms of a lawyer offering nothing.
Disciplinary Finding Details
Name: Andrew Richard Bousfield
Status: Non-Practising Barrister
Called: November 2004
Inn: Inner Temple
Type of Hearing: Visitors Hearing (Appeal)
In breach of:
Paragraphs 201, 202(a), 202(b), 202(c), 202(d), 301(a)(i) and (iii), 901.5 and 901.7 of the Code of Conduct of the Bar of England and Wales (8th Edition).
Details of Offence
Andrew Bousfield between 28 October 2007 and 23 February 2008 held himself out or allowed himself to be held out as a barrister, pursuant to paragraph 201 of the Bar’s Code of Conduct, in correspondence with MJ solicitors dated 29 October 2007, undated but around 6 November 2007 and 14 November 2007, for the purposes of supplying legal services to a member of the public, namely P, without having complied with the practising requirements in paragraphs 202(a) to 202(d) of the Bar’s Code of Conduct which by virtue of its nature, degree, repetition and/or combination with the matters set out in charge 2 was so serious as to be likely to bring the Bar into disrepute.
Andrew Bousfield between 28 October 2007 and 23 February 2008 engaged in conduct which was discreditable to a barrister and/or likely to diminish public confidence in the legal profession or otherwise brought the legal profession into disrepute, contrary to paragraph 301(a)(i) and/or (iii) of the Bar’s Code of Conduct, by engaging in correspondence which in its tone and content was abrasive, intemperate, unprofessional, insulting and/or discourteous, namely letters/e.mails dated :
(a) 29 October 2007 where he accused M&J solicitors of “attempting to enshrine clear lies in nasty legal proceedings” and asserted that correspondence in relation to a Compromise Agreement was an “attempt by W to cajole and bully far beyond his legal remit in attempting to add phrases which pervert the truth. Such intellectual thuggery would not be acceptable in London….As such, I can only conclude that clause 11 is further evidence of a recognisable pattern of behaviour on the part of W, namely using the law to bully and cajole”,
(b) 10 January 2008 to S of the Trust where he asserted that the “Trust has received top marks in lying and deceiving” and alleged that “promises to keep information confidential is nothing but a deception, and borderline lie” and,
(c) 7 February 2008 to S where he asserted that the “conduct of the Trust [was] equivalent to having a Girl Guides Troupe running a hospital” which was “disgraceful” and described a Trust document as a “bullying ‘action plan’ which looked as though it had been drafted by teenage women”.
Sentence:
Charges 1 & 2 Reprimanded
Costs: £1,513
Date of Decision: 16th June 2011
Status: Final
Click here to return to the search
Related Links
1, Andrew loses Cornish Whistleblowing case.
2. Journalist Linked to Higher Fine for Whistleblower.
3. HSJ - A Fascinating Account.
4. More scores to settle. No ball.
I really really love this judgment by the BSB. It is a masterpiece in description of his character. Maybe the BSB should have been in Cornwall with their popcorn just for the entertainment. The practical impossibility of costs at a ET amused me somewhat. Here is part of the judgment :-
"The judgement said the "brief and, in our view, scandalous" involvement of Mr Bousfield corroborated the conduct of the claimant as "vexatious, scandalous or otherwise unreasonable".
It added: "While the actions of Mr Bousfield are clearly open to very serious criticism, we do not accept that a claimant whose prime interest was to have a fair hearing of an unfair dismissal claim would be prepared to be caught up in the personal crusade of an outsider who seemed interested only in hijacking the proceedings for his own purpose. It seems to us more probable that the claimant was happy to be party to that crusade which, in our judgement, renders the conduct of these proceedings at best unreasonable and at worst vexatious and scandalous."
Grieve may have been better off being represented by the local A Level student.
For any lawyer, victims are often useful. Whistleblowers on Medical Harm gives the website credibility and in turn some of its credibility rubs of on its owners. In the world where legal aid is scarce, publicity is scarce, anyone who is desperate enough will run into the arms of a lawyer offering nothing.
Disciplinary Finding Details
Name: Andrew Richard Bousfield
Status: Non-Practising Barrister
Called: November 2004
Inn: Inner Temple
Type of Hearing: Visitors Hearing (Appeal)
In breach of:
Paragraphs 201, 202(a), 202(b), 202(c), 202(d), 301(a)(i) and (iii), 901.5 and 901.7 of the Code of Conduct of the Bar of England and Wales (8th Edition).
Details of Offence
Andrew Bousfield between 28 October 2007 and 23 February 2008 held himself out or allowed himself to be held out as a barrister, pursuant to paragraph 201 of the Bar’s Code of Conduct, in correspondence with MJ solicitors dated 29 October 2007, undated but around 6 November 2007 and 14 November 2007, for the purposes of supplying legal services to a member of the public, namely P, without having complied with the practising requirements in paragraphs 202(a) to 202(d) of the Bar’s Code of Conduct which by virtue of its nature, degree, repetition and/or combination with the matters set out in charge 2 was so serious as to be likely to bring the Bar into disrepute.
Andrew Bousfield between 28 October 2007 and 23 February 2008 engaged in conduct which was discreditable to a barrister and/or likely to diminish public confidence in the legal profession or otherwise brought the legal profession into disrepute, contrary to paragraph 301(a)(i) and/or (iii) of the Bar’s Code of Conduct, by engaging in correspondence which in its tone and content was abrasive, intemperate, unprofessional, insulting and/or discourteous, namely letters/e.mails dated :
(a) 29 October 2007 where he accused M&J solicitors of “attempting to enshrine clear lies in nasty legal proceedings” and asserted that correspondence in relation to a Compromise Agreement was an “attempt by W to cajole and bully far beyond his legal remit in attempting to add phrases which pervert the truth. Such intellectual thuggery would not be acceptable in London….As such, I can only conclude that clause 11 is further evidence of a recognisable pattern of behaviour on the part of W, namely using the law to bully and cajole”,
(b) 10 January 2008 to S of the Trust where he asserted that the “Trust has received top marks in lying and deceiving” and alleged that “promises to keep information confidential is nothing but a deception, and borderline lie” and,
(c) 7 February 2008 to S where he asserted that the “conduct of the Trust [was] equivalent to having a Girl Guides Troupe running a hospital” which was “disgraceful” and described a Trust document as a “bullying ‘action plan’ which looked as though it had been drafted by teenage women”.
Sentence:
Charges 1 & 2 Reprimanded
Costs: £1,513
Date of Decision: 16th June 2011
Status: Final
Click here to return to the search
Related Links
1, Andrew loses Cornish Whistleblowing case.
2. Journalist Linked to Higher Fine for Whistleblower.
3. HSJ - A Fascinating Account.
4. More scores to settle. No ball.
0 comments:
Post a Comment