|[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions >> AB, R (On the Application Of) v Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust & Anor (Rev 1)  EWHC 2287 (Admin) (19 August 2020)
Cite as:  EWHC 2287 (Admin)
[New search] [Context] [View without highlighting] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Reporting restrictions prohibit the publication of the applicable information to the public or any section of the public, in writing, in a broadcast or by means of the internet, including social media. Anyone who receives a copy of this transcript is responsible in law for making sure that applicable restrictions are not breached. A person who breaches a reporting restriction is liable to a fine and/or imprisonment. For guidance on whether reporting restrictions apply, and to what information, ask at the court office or take legal advice.
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
1 Oxford Row, Leeds LS1 3BG
B e f o r e :
(SITTING AS A JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT)
| THE QUEEN (ON THE APPLICATION OF MRS AB)
|- and -
|(1) NORTHUMBRIA HEALTHCARE NHS FOUNDATION TRUST
(2) CUMBRIA, NORTHUMBERLAND, TYNE AND WEAR FOUNDATION TRUST
Mr Gethin Thomas (instructed by DAC Beachcroft LLP) for the Defendants
Hearing dates: 14 August 2020
Crown Copyright ©
Covid-19 Protocol: This Judgment was handed down by the Judge remotely by circulation to the parties' representatives by email (and the Claimant direct) and release to BAILII. The date and time for hand-down will be deemed to be 2.00pm 19/08/2020. A copy of the judgment in final form as handed down can be made available after that time, on request by email to the email@example.com
His Honour Judge Davis-White QC :
The First Referral: 20 August 2018
The Second Referral
Result of D1's review of the accuracy of the First Referral and steps to be taken
"We apologise that the information within the original referral to F – CAMHS does not appear to be fully accurate in relation to the babies state of un-dress and the number of times the incident took place and that at some point there looks to have been an accidental relaying of mis-information between professionals. CAMHS can write a letter to F-CMAHS stating this and updating with the correct information/"
In the first paragraph under the heading "conclusion". The letter said (among other things) "we will write a letter to F-CAMHS and the GP to correct the facts about the frequency of masturbation and the state of dress of the baby."
Third Referral: April 2019
The 18 June 2019 meeting: CNTW Trust and Mrs AB
"A point we seemed to get stuck on yesterday was whether the first referral had "misrepresented facts" (your term) or whether it contained "untrue" facts (my term). I am still not sure what the difference is to you. I suppose to myself the term "misrepresented" implies that the facts are accurate but portrayed in a misleading way. My husband and I both find it troubling that someone else can read through all the correspondence and still be confused on this point. I do not wish to slow down the FCAMHS assessment, but I don't want my son to be seen by a clinician who still believes the first report contains accurate, but "misrepresented" information.
My question is: Am I correct in understanding that without a judiciary review you are unprepared to accept that the first referral contains "untrue information"?"
"in which you specifically ask if I can confirm what I said during our meeting on 18 June 2019 that a "judiciary review" of your son's original FCAMHS referral would be required in order for records to be amended.
I am unable to recall or confirm verbatim our conversation, however in our discussions I would have explained that our organisation [the CNTW Trust] would not be able to remove clinical documentation or references contained therein without appropriate and formal direction, and that such may require legal advice, review and/or intervention in order for this to be achieved.
I have reflected your position and had had conversations with [The Team Manager, Specialist Clinical Lead FCAMHS]to confirm that we have made notes on our system to identify that the information received by us is deemed to be inaccurate by yourself, that information held on V is third party from [Northumbria Trust] and we confirm that the information was not generated by [the CNTW Trust]."
"It would therefore appear to be the case that any inaccurate information had now been corrected. This would not necessarily result in the deletion of the referral form as it may be required to show why actions were taken. Providing the document is marked as being inaccurate and not used further, this would be sufficient."
"Turning to your concerns about consent, the Trust has confirmed in their correspondence to us that they are not relying on consent as the basis of their processing. They are instead processing data as part of their role as a public authority and for the provision of healthcare.
Whilst I appreciate that there is a reference to your providing consent to the referral, this is not for the processing of data and as such you withdrawing consent would not require the Trust to delete the referral letter."
Mrs AB's application to adduce further evidence
Permission to proceed?
(a) Locus or standing
(b) Adequate alternative remedy
(c) The merits