Relationship with Harman & Harman Solicitors in relation to the Clifford Ayling case

Amanda Bennett made this Freedom of Information request to Kent Police This request has been closed to new correspondence. Contact us if you think it should be reopened.

The request was refused by Kent Police.

Amanda Bennett

Dear Sir or Madam,

I am writing to find out more about the relationship between Kent Police and Harman & Harman solicitors. Is it true that Kent Police investigated the activities of Clifford Ayling?

Did Harriet Harman then represent any of the victims/witnesses that were processed by Kent police?

How did Kent Police become involved in the Ayling case, that is, what event triggered the police's involvement?

What event triggered Harriet Harman's involvement with the victims/witnesses of Kent police?

Does anyone who is related to Sarah Harman, solicitor, or Harriet Harman QC, MP, (both sisters) work for Kent Police, or who has at any time worked for Kent police?

Has all contact between Harman & Harman solicitors and Kent Police in relation to the Clifford Ayling case been documented?

Have any meetings between Harman & Harman solicitors and Kent Police in relation to the Clifford Ayling case been minuted?

Are copies of such documentation available anywhere in the public domain, or can they be requested by members of the public? If so, can you please provide them, or a link to them, for me, please?

Yours faithfully,

Amanda Bennett

Freedom of Information Freedom of Information,

2 Attachments

Dear Ms Bennett

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST 3546-2009

Thank you for your request received by Kent Police on 6May 2009. I note
you seek access, in summary, to the following information:

Regarding the relationship between Kent Police and Harman and Harman
Solicitors.

Your interest in Kent Police is appreciated and pending a specific
response to your request, I enclose a sheet, which summarises your rights.
Should you have any further inquiries concerning this matter, please write
or contact me on telephone number 01622 654429 quoting the reference
number above.

Yours sincerely,

Freedom of Information Team
Data Protection Unit
Kent Police
Force HQ
Sutton Road
Maidstone
Kent ME15 9BZ

E-mail: [Kent Police request email]
Tel: +44 (0)1622 654429/654413
Fax: +44 (0)1622 654437
Internal: 19-4429/4413

Amanda Bennett

Dear Sir or Madam,

In my previous letter to Kent Police, I wrote:

'Did Harriet Harman then represent any of the victims/witnesses that
were processed by Kent police?'

AND

'What event triggered Harriet Harman's involvement with the
victims/witnesses of Kent police?'

I meant Sarah Harman, NOT Harriet Harman MP. Please accept my apologies for this error.

Yours sincerely,

Amanda Bennett

Joan AYLING left an annotation ()

I am the daughter of Clifford Ayling and am able to confirm that:

1. The Kent Police worked closely with the Health Authority and arrested my father with help from the Health Authority who organised the time of arrest and a locum. Copies of the Health Authority's notes are still in existence.

2. The Police and the CPS decided at a very early stage not to interveiw any surgery staff or chaperones when it became obvious that allegations were unfounded and would be contradicted by chaperones.

3. Sarah Harman (solicitor) had on her books as a client many months before my father's criminal trial a woman who subsequently claimed civil compensation from my father. On a no-win no-fee basis.

4. Kent Police aided Sarah Harman in the months following my father's conviction by contacting complainants on behalf of Sarah Harman (presumably with a view to asking them to join the group claim for civil compensation).

5. The inquiry into the Ayling case was a 'private form of public inquiry' and all the transcripts and material are now held by the Department of Health. The Department of Health has consistently refused to allow my father access to any of the material of which he is the subject on the sole grounds that it would cost them too much and despite offers to pay the cost.

6. All the above is documented.

7. There is a website in existence at the following address ( http://www.fdrgp-cliffordayling.com/comm... ) which contains a great deal of information about the Ayling case.

Amanda Bennett

Dear Freedom of Information Officer from Kent Police,

I recently wrote to Kent Police asking for details about the Force's relationship with Sarah Harman and Harman & Harman Solicitors. You have failed to respond within 20 working days.

As you will be aware, by law public authorities must respond "promptly", and in any event not later than 20 working days after receiving an FOI request. The date of that hard limit has now passed without a proper response from you. This means in effect that you are breaking the law in relation to Freedom of Information.

I understand that I sent you a further note, explaining an initial mistake I had made between the names of the Harman sisters - Sarah and Harriet, however, and that this could be construed as (my) clarifying my request, in which case the clock starts from the date I added the clarification, instead of the date you received my initial request. I trust in that event that you will respond to my request within the statutory time limit.

Yours sincerely,

Amanda Bennett

Freedom of Information Freedom of Information, Kent Police

Dear Ms. Bennett,

Thank you for your email regarding your request reference 3546-2009.
Unfortunately this unit has been experiencing staffing difficulties and
this combined with a substantial increase in requests has resulted in a
delay in requests being processed. I apologise for this delay and can
confirm that your request is currently receiving attention and we will
provide the response as soon as possible.

Many Thanks

Laura Birchley

Freedom of Information Team
Information Compliance Unit
Kent Police
Force HQ
Sutton Road
Maidstone
Kent ME15 9BZ

E-mail: [Kent Police request email]
Tel: +44 (0)1622 654429/654413
Fax: +44 (0)1622 654437
Internal: 19-4429/4413

Dear Sir or Madam,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews. Whilst I initially accepted Kent police's reason for taking more than the statutory maximum time limit for responding to my initial request, the delay has now become unreasonable: this is now a month AFTER the statutory time limit has elapsed and Kent police have still failed to respond. This is unacceptable by any standards. If some or all of my request is better dealt with under the Data Protection Act, then that fact should have been communicated to me by now. As it has not, I conclude that Kent police are handling my request under the Freedom of Information legislation and, as such, are breaking the law by failing to respond.

I am therefore writing to request an internal review of Kent Police's handling of my FOI request 'Relationship with Harman & Harman Solicitors in relation to the Clifford Ayling case'.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/re...

Yours faithfully,

Amanda Bennett

Joan AYLING left an annotation ()

Hello,

It may be useful to you to ask the Kent Police for a copy of correspondance between Detective Sean Beautridge and Sarah Harman in connection with the civil proceedings conducted by Sarah Harman's firm after the conviction of Clifford Ayling.

There is a particular letter (I think dated in the early months of 2001) sent by S. Beautridge to Sarah Harman in which he confirmed the outcome of each count on the indictment.

The first paragraph(s) of this letter is of particular interest because S. Beautridge confirms to Sarah Harman that on her behalf he called two women who had obtained convictions, and passed on correspondence addressed to them from Sarah Harman, and that he felt the said women would respond. One of those two women was referred to by Sarah Harman at the civil proceedings in 2002 as being a (future?) claimant against the Health Authority although she was not part of the proceedings in 2002 against Clifford Ayling.

I can only presume the Kent Police, after Clifford Ayling's conviction, helped Sarah Harman to further her firm's interests, and that Sarah Harman used her position to gain unfair advantage by using the Police to contact prospective clients on her behalf.

A copy of the letter to which I refer above was produced in a number of the bundles produced by the firm Harman & Harman at the civil hearings in Canterbury in April 2002 (J. GODDEN & others -v- Clifford AYLING).

I hope this may be useful to you.

Joan AYLING
(Clifford Ayling's daughter)

Amanda Bennett left an annotation ()

Thanks for that, Joan. Unfortunately, the police have to date given me absolutely no information. I have requested an internal review, but they have not even responded to that either.

Joan AYLING left an annotation ()

Just to rectify, the first-part civil hearings in Canterbury in January 2002 were Jacqui Godden and Steina Pluckrose versus Clifford Ayling. The second part hearing in February 2002 was Wafa Bayfield and Others versus Clifford Ayling. And the judicial review of the decision not to hold the Ayling Inquiry in public was filed in the name of Patricia Howard. The bankruptcy proceedings against Clifford Ayling were filed in the name of Steina Pluckrose.

Freedom of Information Freedom of Information, Kent Police

Dear Ms. Bennett,

Thank you for your recent email and I apologise that we have not yet
replied to this. Your request has been passed to Mr. Nigel Amos the
Freedom of Information Advisor and he will shortly be providing a response
to you. This response will include the information that you have requested
and will also address your complaint concerning the handling of your
request.

I trust this is satisfactory, however if you have any further concerns
please feel free to contact us on 01622 654429.

Many Thanks

Laura Birchley

Freedom of Information Team
Information Compliance Unit
Kent Police
Force HQ
Sutton Road
Maidstone
Kent ME15 9BZ

E-mail: [Kent Police request email]
Tel: +44 (0)1622 654429/654413
Fax: +44 (0)1622 654437
Internal: 19-4429/4413

Freedom of Information Freedom of Information,

2 Attachments

Dear Ms Bennett,

Please find attached the Kent Police response to your request reference
3546-2009. I apologise for the delay in providing a response to this
request.

Many thanks,

Julia Potten

Freedom of Information Team
Data Protection Unit
Kent Police
Force HQ
Sutton Road
Maidstone
Kent ME15 9BZ

E-mail: [Kent Police request email]
Tel: +44 (0)1622 654429/654413
Fax: +44 (0)1622 654437
Internal: 19-4429/4413

Joan AYLING left an annotation ()

Annotations about the questions in Amanda Bennett’s request to Kent Police.

Question 1.
Kent Police investigated Clifford Ayling. The name of the officer in charge of the investigation, Sean BEAUTRIDGE, appears in the witness list at the end of the ministerial white paper published on 9th September 2004. However, I believe there is no specific reference to any evidence he may have given within the body of the paper, and very little detail of the role the police played in the Clifford Ayling case. Perusal of the papers provided to Clifford Ayling’s defence solicitors by the CPS show that evidence relating to some of the complainants whose allegations remained on the indictment was withheld by the CPS.

Question 2.
Sarah Harman represented complainants against Clifford Ayling only in civil proceedings and at the Ayling Inquiry (for which her firm obtained a large sum of public money in fees). She had previously represented complainants against the former gynaecologist and obstetrician Rodney Ledward at the Ritchie Inquiry. Some of Sarah Harman’s clients were patients in the past of both Rodney Ledward (a hospital consultant) and Clifford Ayling (clinical assistant to Rodney Ledward and also GP). This was notably the case of the complainant who claimed first against the Health Authority in connection with Rodney Ledward, then against Clifford Ayling, then made Clifford Ayling bankrupt, and then claimed against the Health Authority in connection with Clifford Ayling. She apparently did all this as a client of Sarah Harman.

Question 3:
The Police appear to have become involved in investigating Clifford Ayling in September 1998 when a woman who was a Health Authority employee in Maidstone made a police statement. Only then did the two friends who had complained to the Health Authority in February/March 1998 make police statements. Once the police had got a fourth statement they brought in an ‘expert’ to make a statement that would allow them to arrest Clifford Ayling, which they did in November 1998. The Police and the Health Authority liaised extremely closely to organise the arrest (this is documented in Health Authority notes). A doctor at the neighbouring White House Surgery also liaised extremely closely with the Health Authority and contacted former patients of Clifford Ayling, in some cases calling at their homes, to see if they would be prepared to make a complaint about him. The Health Authority encouraged complainants to go to the Police. The following is an extract from a document provided to the High Court by Clifford Ayling in 2007:

“497. Patient N

The Claimant is aware that Patient N, who was not joined to any of the civil claim actions that are known to the Claimant, made a statement to the Ayling Inquiry to the effect that she went to the Police to complain of having had a very serious adverse reaction resulting from a prescribing error but was persuaded by the Police that she had been a victim of indecent assault and encouraged to make a police complaint to that effect against the Claimant.”

Question 4:
Sarah Harman is known to have entered into an agreement with a client in relation to allegations against Clifford Ayling prior to the commencement of the criminal trial in October 2000.

The following is an extract from a document provided to the High Court by Clifford Ayling in 2007:

1. “Patient P
A few weeks before the commencement of the Claimant’s criminal trial the police obtained a further statement from one of the complainants, Patient P. This second statement was suppressed by the Police and the Crown Prosecution Service and the case of Patient P was allowed to remain on the indictment.

2. However, the said statement turned up in documentation produced by the firm Harman & Harman in February 2002 in the civil proceedings against the Claimant. The Bill of Costs produced by the firm Harman & Harman after the conclusion of the civil proceedings in 2002 also showed that Patient P had become a client of the firm in April 2000, that is to say a whole six months prior to the Claimant’s criminal trial. The firm had entered into a conditional fee agreement with Patient P.

3. Patient P’s second statement to the Police made on 14 September 2000 (and not on 14 September 1999 as stated at §55.20 of the Particulars of Claim signed by a partner of Sarah Harman in March 2004) raises such serious questions about how some of the complaints against the Claimant came to be made that the Claimant believes its existence is sufficient in itself to uphold a request that all documentation produced by the firm Harman & Harman in relation to matters arising out of the alleged behaviour of the Claimant should be made available to a review panel.

4. This in order to ascertain whether material provided to the Inquiry by the firm was consistent with earlier documents produced by the firm and whether evidence given to the Inquiry was ‘sexed up’, ‘complainted up’ or distorted with a view to misleading the Inquiry and perverting the course of justice.

5. It is to be noted that Patient P did not obtain a conviction at the Claimant’s criminal trial but was joined as a claimant in the class action against the Claimant in 2001-2002 and also the class action against the Health Authority in 2004.

6. The second police statement made by Patient P on 14 September 2000 is copied below in its entirety:

“In addition to my earlier statement I would like to add the following. I went to Harman and Harman Solicitors of Canterbury on advice from my aunties boyfriend. He had advised me to see a solicitor because I was not getting the treatment for my ovarian cyst which I needed. I was in severe pain which was mostly continual. I believe that I had had an operation for the ovarian cyst but the hospital, the William Harvey Hospital would not give me answers to questions I asked them. I was dissatisfied with the hospital. The solicitor who dealt with me was [Mrs ...]. I explained to her what had been happening, prior to seeing [Mrs ...] I had written my own notes, outlining what had happened to me and I took those notes with me and showed them to her. I believe I saw [Mrs ...] twice. I believe that it was during my first visit to her that [Mrs ...] advised me to go to the police to make a complaint about Dr AYLING. On either the first or second visit, I believe it was the second visit, [Mrs ...] advised me that I may be entitled to criminal injuries compensation. I filled in some forms in the presence of [Mrs ...]. I was surprised, initially, when [Mrs ...] advised me to go to the police about Dr AYLING, because that was not the reason why I went to see her. Prior to seeing [Mrs ...] I don’t believe I had ever heard of criminal injuries compensation. The notes I wrote out before going to see [Mrs ...] I have already given to the police.”

7. When the matter of this statement was brought to the attention of the Law Society, the response was that the firm would have been negligent “if they had not advised [Patient P] of the possibility of being entered as a party in the compensation claim [against the Claimant]”.

8. The Claimant believes that if the Law Society’s analysis of the contents of the statement cited above was correct, there was no logical reason for the Crown Prosecution Service to have failed to inform the Claimant’s solicitor’s of its existence. This was indeed a procedural fault as it was specifically requested by the Crown Prosecution Service that the case of Patient P remain on the indictment.

9. Similarly, if the existence of Patient P’s further statement was not a cause for embarrassment to the firm Harman & Harman, why in March 2004 would one of Sarah Harman’s partners have altered the date on which the statement was made and failed to refer to the fact that the contents of the said statement did not refer at all to any alleged behaviour of the Claimant?

10. It is of note that the said statement was not referred to in previous documents produced by the firm Harman & Harman for the civil proceedings against the Claimant in 2002 and its presence within the bundles of evidence served on the firm of solicitors who were to represent the Claimant appears to have been an oversight as the statement could well have been mistaken for run-on pages of the initial police statement made by Patient P on 10 February 1999.”

Question 5:
Although Sarah Harman did not represent complainants at Clifford Ayling’s criminal trial, she did have at least one client on her books prior to the trial in connection with the same set of allegations as those canvassed at the trial and her firm sent forms to the Kent Police prior to the criminal trial in connection with a request for information from the Kent Police to further a Criminal Injuries Compensation Board claim. There was therefore contact between Sarah Harman’s firm and the Kent Police relating to Clifford Ayling at least as early as 2000 and Sarah Harman had a client in connection with the case prior to the criminal trial, despite a claim in the media that quoted Sarah Harman as having said she became interested in the case after Clifford Ayling had been convicted.

Questions 6,7,8:
Contact between Sarah Harman and the Kent Police was documented in material provided by the CPS to Clifford Ayling’s solicitors prior to the criminal trial, and in bundles provided to the Court by Sarah Harman’s firm in civil proceedings in 2002. Very rapidly after Clifford Ayling’s conviction, Sarah Harman requested from the CPS copies of all documentation relating to the case, including documentation relating to complainants who had been part of the police investigation but who were not at that time her clients.

The following is an extract from a document provided to the High Court by Clifford Ayling in 2007:

“Sarah Harman was aided in mounting the civil case against the Claimant by the then Detective Constable Sean Beautridge. On 25 April 2001 the latter confirmed in a letter to Sarah Harman that he had forwarded her letters to Patient R and another woman “as requested” and that: “Prior to sending the letters I telephoned each woman and explained the current situation and the details of your request. I am optimistic that they will call you.” ”

It is interesting to note that the Kent Police are invoking costs as a loophole to evade providing information. The Department of Health used the same argument to prevent Clifford Ayling obtaining information relating to himself that is in the possession of the Department of Health, despite Clifford Ayling having offered to cover the said cost himself.

It is also interesting to note the reference to an ‘expectation of confidence’ in relation to litigation and civil proceedings. It is to be noted that the civil proceedings in 2002 in Canterbury were public and were attended by journalists, and that all the contents of the hearings of the Ayling Inquiry were in effect public as all participants to the Inquiry present at the hearings were allowed to report all of what they had heard to the media. As such, there exists an expectation of transparency when making requests to obtain information about what was said about oneself at such hearings.

Joan AYLING left an annotation ()

Just to say that I am doing annotations from memory with reference to some documents that I have recuperated. With regards to my annotation above, I seem to remember that it was only one of the two "friends" who made a police statement before Clifford Ayling's arrest, and the other made her police statement after the arrest. At the criminal trial the latter confirmed that she and her friend had discussed together making a complaint against Clifford Ayling prior to making their complaint to the Health Authority.

Another patient was approached by the former and tried to make a police statement to that effect.

The following information about this was provided to the High Court by Clifford Ayling in 2007:

483. Patient K

Patient K is the woman who made the first complaint to the Health Authority in 1998 and is referred to in the Ayling Report at §3.359 [1/p.99/§3.359]. In her letter to the Health Authority received by the latter on 3 March 1998, Patient K named a friend of hers (Patient AE) whom she indicated also believed she may have been abused by the Claimant. Patient K provided the Health Authority with Patient AE’s contact details.

484. It would appear that Patient K, at a date prior to that on which she claims to have been assaulted by the Claimant, also spoke to another patient of the Claimant, Mrs [NC1], and spoke about the intention of making a complaint about the Claimant.

485. There is a trace of what Patient K apparently said to Mrs [NC1] at item 234 of the schedule of unused material produced by the Crown Prosecution Service that was retrieved by the Claimant from the firm of solicitors who acted for him at his criminal trial:

“Hand written result from Mr K[], a civilian statement taker for Kent Police. The result is in response to items 165 and 177 of this schedule. Mrs [NC1] had been approached by [Patient K] and asked to complain to the Police. Mrs [NC1] holds Dr Ayling in the highest regard. She does not wish to make any complaint against him and would not make a statement regarding her conversation with [Patient K].”

486. The explanation for the absence of a police statement by Mrs [NC1] is to be found in a note made by one of the Defence solicitors during a telephone conversation with Mrs [NC1] in July 2000:

“Note of possible evidence which Mrs [NC1] would give – telephone conversation with SM on 21.7.00:
…[Mrs NC1] did try [to go to the police], 3 or 4 times but the police were not interested. They did give her a phone number to call and she did but they weren’t interested either…Then a policeman…called her several times asking her to make a statement…she said she would just include what [Patient K] actually said to her but he was insistent that she included reference to [Mrs Ayling’s reaction when Mrs NC1 had mentioned the incident] so she decided not to make a statement after all as she felt that it would be used against Dr Ayling rather than for him which was not her intention at all.”

Only by cross-referencing material (CPS documents, court transcripts, Defence material) is it possible to get an overall picture of how the Kent Police carried out their investigation into allegations made against Clifford Ayling.

When you know that one complainant did not pursue her complaint because she said in a letter addressed to the Police that she had felt "pressurized", and that a policeman in a handwritten note was hoping that a statement to be obtained would "hang the good doctor" (those are the exact words that were written), one can imagine that the Kent Police are not too keen to have any of the material they possess in relation to the case scrutinised.