Make and explore Freedom of Information requests
Offensive? Unsuitable?
Requests for personal information and vexatious requests are not considered valid for FOI purposes (read more).
If you believe this request is not suitable, you can report it for attention by the site administrators
Report this requestAct on what you've learnt
Similar requests
Complaints about psychologists and psychiatrists.
To Kent and Medway NHS and Social Care Partnership Trust by A Williamson 9 December 2010
misconduct or unqualified expert witnesses registered with GMC / HPC
To Health Professions Council by Sheila Hersom 17 March 2012
Public naming of "expert witnesses " acting dishonestly and unprofessionally
To General Medical Council by C. Smith-Byrne 31 August 2010
misconduct or unqualified expert witnesses registered with GMC / HPC
To General Medical Council by Sheila Hersom 17 March 2012
Practitioner psychologists: Fitness to Practise minutes and transcripts
To Health Professions Council by William Thackeray 4 March 2011
DR GEORGE HIBBERT TADPOLE COTTAGE
To General Medical Council by Jane Webb 15 June 2009
Defective Health Assessments in Family Law
To Department of Health by Paul Randle-Jolliffe 24 June 2011
Patient awareness of Mental Health diagnosis
To Department of Health by Geoffrey Thursfield 29 November 2011
Judges Acting Outside Remit in Public Family Courts #2
To Ministry of Justice by Liz R (Account suspended) 25 May 2011
Dr Anthony William Baker
To General Medical Council by C. Smith-Byrne 21 March 2012
Complaints about court experts.
A Williamson made this Freedom of Information request to Her Majesty’s Courts and the Tribunals Service
The request was refused by Her Majesty’s Courts and the Tribunals Service.
From: A Williamson
9 December 2010
Dear Her Majesty's Courts Service,
Please could you tell me how many people have complained about
reports made by the following people and out of these complaints,
how many have been upheld. Could I also ask for statistics on the
number of family cases they have written reports for verses the
number of cases won by the local authority.
Graham Flatman psychologist, often referred to as Dr Flatman even
though he isn't a doctor. Works from a PO Box in Faversham.
Dr Paul Millard psychiatrist.
Oliver Hockley
Dr Donald Bermingham.
These three are from the Child and Family Court Assessment Service.
I would also like to ask if it is lawful for these kinds of
specialists to use pure conjecture in their reports and if the
courts are in agreements with such conjecture being used instead of
hard facts?
Is it lawful for them to put before the court out of date
information or their interpretation of out of date material, which
has not been proven as fact in a court of law?
Are they allowed to slander someone's name in court with untruths
and conjecture and if so, is the injured party allowed to raise
this in court and ask for redress in such a case?
Yours faithfully,
A Williamson
From: Data Access & Compliance Unit
Her Majesty’s Courts and the Tribunals Service
13 December 2010
Freedom of Information Request FOI/68346/10
Data Access & Compliance Unit
Information Directorate
Zone 6 B
Post point 6.25
102 Petty France
London
SW1H 9AJ
T 020 3334 2650
F 020 3334 2245
E [HMCS request email]
www.justice.gov.uk
13-DEC-10 Our Ref:FOI/68346/10
Dear A Williamson,
SUBJECT: Freedom of Information Request
Thank you for your correspondence of December 9, 2010, in which you
asked for Information relating to Complaints about court experts
under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) from the Ministry of
Justice (MoJ).
You will receive a response from us by January 10, 2011. Your request
has been passed to the appropriate business unit within the MoJ, and
they will write to you with their decision by this date.
The FOIA does provide a number of exemptions. A qualified exemption
requires that before relying on it we must consider the public interest
test. If the information you have requested is covered by a qualified
exemption(s) under FOIA, the Department is allowed to take longer than
20 working days to respond. This is because in such circumstances we are
required to consider the public interest issues when deciding whether or
not to disclose the information requested.
If more time is needed to consider the public interest issues under a
qualified exemption(s), we will write to you and inform you of the
revised date you can expect to receive a response to your request.
If you have any queries regarding this request please do not hesitate to
contact us. Please quote ref: FOI/68346/10 in all future correspondence.
Yours sincerely,
Jushna Chowdhury
(Sent on behalf of Peter Harlow)
Data Access and Compliance Unit
This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of
the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying
is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy
all
copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.
Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this message
could be intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in
mind when deciding whether to send material in response to this message
by e-mail.
This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be
monitored, recorded and retained by the Ministry of Justice. E-mail
monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be
read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not
broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.
show quoted sections
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.
From: Harlow, Peter
Her Majesty’s Courts and the Tribunals Service
21 December 2010
Dear A Williamson
Please find the enclosed response to your Freedom of Information request
Ref: FOI/68346/10
Yours Sincerely
Peter Harlow | Data Access & Compliance Unit|
Ministry of Justice | 102 Petty France | London | SW1H 9AJ
This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of
the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying
is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy
all
copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.
Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this message
could be intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in
mind when deciding whether to send material in response to this message
by e-mail.
This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be
monitored, recorded and retained by the Ministry of Justice. E-mail
monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be
read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not
broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.
show quoted sections
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.
Linda McDermott left an annotation ( 6 November 2011)
I have made complaints about Graham Flatman psychologist , you are right about do not bother going to the HPC. I have a blog which has pooled lots of cases done by experts for court and we are going to investigate a system that does not deal with complaints.
If you want to speak to other parents who had complaints about Graham Flatman contact me via the blog www.lyndamac.com . send an email address please with the request to see the blog .
This man works from a PO BOX number and is no more money for writing reports than David Cameron PM.
My barrister said he done the 30 years out of date MMP1 test on me which was not valid in the UK . The report was incomprehensible and incomplete .
If this was any other person doing a job , they would not have got paid. He charged over £5,980 for the report for court plus VAT
Things to do with this request
- Add an annotation (to help the requester or others)
- Download a zip file of all correspondence
Melizza Moore left an annotation (14 December 2010)
There is no point going to the HPC as I tried too, with the evidence supplied that showed FRAUD of the part of CAFCASS , my children's solicitor ( social services minions) but they sided with him as no collegue defecates on another as they all are in the same pot. Carter Brown associates are used A LOT in care proceedings. They are one of the favourite companies.
Link to this