‘Camden Ripper’ doctor fights new investigation
Pathologist Dr Freddy Patel tells GMC hearing he destroyed post-mortem notes
Published: 15 July, 2010
by CHARLOTTE CHAMBERS
A PATHOLOGIST who ruled a murder victim of the “Camden Ripper” had died from natural causes may face a public hearing over his findings into her death.
Dr Freddy Patel, a pathologist based at St Pancras Mortuary, appeared at a General Medical Council hearing yesterday (Wednesday) held to determine his fitness to continue practising post-mortems after sudden deaths.
He could be struck off the pathologists’ register and banned from practising at St Pancras Coroner’s Court if, at the end of a GMC hearing, it is found his ability is impaired.
The GMC’s case relates to four deaths, including one involving a five-year old girl from Islington – referred to as Miss B – who died at Great Ormond Street Hospital in 2002. It argues Dr Patel’s conduct “was irresponsible and not of the standard expected of a competent Home Office registered forensic pathologist” and that on one occasion his conduct was “liable to bring the profession into disrepute”.
But the hearing is not scheduled to hear evidence about Dr Patel’s involvement in the investigation into the death of Sally White, the first victim of serial killer Anthony Hardy.
Yesterday Simon Jackson QC, for the GMC, asked for it to be considered as a fifth charge, arguing that it was in the public interest for the case to be examined.
Dr Patel is contesting the application, and legal argument surrounding whether Ms White’s case should be considered is expected to continue today (Thursday).
Mr Jackson said that in a post-mortem carried out on January 21, 2002, Dr Patel found Ms White, a 38-year-old prostitute discovered dead behind a locked door in Hardy’s Camden Town flat, had died from natural causes.
Mr Jackson said Dr Patel’s post-mortem report stated there were no signs of asphyxia and “no signs of violence”. Dr Patel had attributed bruising to her nose and liver as a result of “vigorous” attempt at resuscitation.
The hearing was told that 10 days after he had carried out his post-mortem in January, 2002, Dr Patel reviewed his findings following a request by the police – reference was made to a Detective Chief Inspector Bell – to “consider asphyxia as a cause of death”. In April he was again asked by the police to consider whether she had been strangled. He maintained she died from a heart attack.
Hardy was later arrested after the deaths of two prostitutes – their bodies were found chopped up and dumped in bins outside his Camden Town council flat – and in 2003 he pleaded guilty to three murders, including that of Ms White.
In reply to questions from his counsel, Adrian Hopkins, QC, Dr Patel said he would have destroyed his notes from Ms White’s post-mortem at some point between 2007 and 2008, having kept them for several years following Hardy’s guilty plea at the Old Bailey. He had done this because there was no chance that Hardy would appeal against his sentence.
Part of the GMC’s case is that Dr Patel failed to take adequate notes on Sally White’s post mortem. Dr Patel’s counsel took him through some of the charges levelled against him by the GMC and one of them stated he had not commented fully on the significance of external marks on Ms White’s body.
“All the marks would have been recorded,” said Dr Patel. “I would have made a synopsis and put it down in the report which is released to the coroner.”
Mr Hopkins asked Dr Patel for his response to one of the GMC charges that he had wrongly concluded Ms White had died from natural causes. Dr Patel said that he had taken into account what the police had told him, about the position of the body.
In reply to a question whether he had expected criticism over his PM ruling, Dr Patel said he hadn’t and that was why he had destroyed the documentation.
Mr Hopkins argued against Ms White’s case being added to the proceedings. Accusing the GMC of operating under a code of “secrecy,” he said: “Dr Patel has been deprived of the safeguard of raising his arguments and giving his answers. He’s had no opportunity to address the unfairness of the way the case has been secretly investigated and the prejudice this secrecy has caused him.”
Summarising the GMC’s case against Dr Patel, Mr Jackson said the pathologist had a “pattern of working” below an acceptable standard.
Dr Patel also “failed to adequately record or preserve his findings”.