Breach of Duties.

David Grothier made this Freedom of Information request to South Wales Police

This request has been closed to new correspondence from the public body. Contact us if you think it ought be re-opened.

The request was partially successful.

Dear South Wales Police,

Dear Tim JONES, Chief Superintendent Professional Standards.

Dear Tim JONES, Chief Superintendent Professional Standards.

In the matter of my compliant regarding the perversion of the course of Justice by Supt: Mark Lynch.

Despite many, many months of your personal assurances, and those of David Jenkins.
Senior Investigative Assistant. Professional Standards Department concerning an investigation and your report into this matter, which cumulated in your response dated February 2012, by email, and reproduced, for the record as follows: .

Sent: Monday, 27 February 2012, 21:20
Subject: Re: Complaint against the Police [PROTECT]

Dear Mr. GROTHIER, I can confirm that I am in receipt of the final report and will be in a position to provide you with the findings and conclusions before the end of this week. Yours sincerely. Tim jones [sic]

Together with your further email correspondence of March 5. 2012: reproduced as follows (and unsigned).

Dear Mr Grothier,

I am able to inform you that the investigation report dealing with your allegations against Supt Mark LYNCH is now completed and finalised and that I have fully reviewed it. I would wish to send the report to you together with a covering letter from myself. Would you be willing to provide me with a postal address to which I could send the documents.
If you do not wish to do so then I will of course correspond with you via e-mail.

Thank you (end).

And given your further continued insufferable excuses for not honouring your given word, you have left me with no alternative other than to make an official request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOI) as I am at a loss when trying to comprehend the quality of professional standards {that appear not to exist} in South Wales Police Force.

I would add, with respect, and as an impartial observation, that you conduct in this matter as only hindered the already jaded reputation of South Wales Police Force.

Therefore: Under the FOI I would want to know when Tim JONES, Chief Superintendent Professional Standards intends to provide me with the findings and conclusions of the long awaited final report into my complaints, which Supt: Jones now has to hand (see above), together with his proposed accompanying letter. Supt: Jones has stated that he would be in a position to provide me with this information before week ending Sunday March 4. 2012. However, regrettably in keeping with Supt: Jones conduct thorough this investigation he has failed to do so.

In order for clarity, the FOI provides for South Wales Police to reply within twenty (20) working days.

As a supplement to my FOI request to South Wales Police: there are serious issues involved in this matter, consequently, it would have be far more in keeping with alleged professional standards of South Wales Police Force had Sup Jones simply honoured his given word!

Yours faithfully,

David Grothier.

South Wales Police

1 Attachment

Dear David

 

I write to advise that I am in receipt of your e-mail dated 06/03/2012, in
relation to the findings and conclusions of a final report, concerning
your complaints.

 

This letter confirms that your request has now been passed to our FOI
officers who will review the contents of your request and establish if a)
your request is valid under the FOI Act and b) if any further
clarification is required from you to allow us to progress further.

 

Should you wish to contact us regarding your request, please quote
reference number 162/12 on any correspondence. Should you wish to contact
us by e-mail, please do so using the mail box
[1][South Wales Police request email]. (Please do not reply directly to my own
e-mail address as this may result in a further delay to your request).

 

South Wales Police provides you the right to request a re-examination of
your case under its review procedure (copy attached). If you decide to
request such a review and having followed the Constabulary’s full process
you are still dissatisfied, then you have the right to direct your
comments to the Information Commissioner who will give it consideration.

 

Kind Regards

 

Vanessa Matthews

Freedom of Information / Rhyddid Gwybodaeth

South Wales Police HQ / Pencadlys yr Heddlu

Cowbridge Road / Heol y Bont-Faen

Bridgend / Penybont ar Ogwr

CF31 3SU

( Internal / Mewnol: 20622

(   External / Allanol: 01656 869356

Email / E-bost: [email address]

Please visit our website [2]www.south-wales.police.uk / Ewch i'n gwefan 
www.[3]heddlu-de-cymru.police.uk

P   Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this
email? / Ystyriwch yr amgylchedd - oes angen argraffu'r e-bost hwn mewn
gwirionedd?

 

South Wales Police is the 12th most improved force in England & Wales for
overall crime reduction with over 10,000 fewer victims of crime.

Yn nalgylch Heddlu De Cymru y bu r 12fed gostyngiad mwyaf mewn troseddau
drwy Gymru a Lloegr, gyda 10,000 yn llai yn dioddef trosedd.

show quoted sections

South Wales Police

Dear Mr Grothier,

 

In relation to your Freedom of Information request 162/12 requesting
information as to when you will receive the report detailing the findings
and conclusions into your complaints with Supt Jones, Professional
Standards have agreed to deal with your request outside of the Freedom of
Information Act.  Please can you confirm if you are happy for me to
transfer your request to the Professional Standards Department to respond
to your directly?

 

Kind Regards

 

Bev Buckley

Freedom of Information / Rhyddid Gwybodaeth

South Wales Police HQ / Pencadlys yr Heddlu

Cowbridge Road / Heol y Bont-Faen

Bridgend / Penybont ar Ogwr

CF31 3SU

( Internal / Mewnol: 20627

(   External / Allanol: 01656 306160

Email / E-bost: [1][email address]

Please visit our website [2]www.south-wales.police.uk / Ewch i'n gwefan 
www.[3]heddlu-de-cymru.police.uk

P   Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this
email? / Ystyriwch yr amgylchedd - oes angen argraffu'r e-bost hwn mewn
gwirionedd?

 

 

 

 

 

South Wales Police is the 12th most improved force in England & Wales for
overall crime reduction with over 10,000 fewer victims of crime.

Yn nalgylch Heddlu De Cymru y bu r 12fed gostyngiad mwyaf mewn troseddau
drwy Gymru a Lloegr, gyda 10,000 yn llai yn dioddef trosedd.

show quoted sections

Dear South Wales Police,
Att Tim Jones Chief Superintendent.

I would wish my requests to remain under the FOI Act, although I have received your report via a different method.

I find areas of vagueness within your report to me and understandably I need to be absolutely clear on aspects of your findings contained therein. Such findings, as stated, I opine, could have a potentially huge impact/influence upon the UK Criminal Justice system.

Therefore, under the FOI Act 2000 I want to know if you, on behalf of South Wales Police Force, are in fact telling me that there are circumstance when a clearly orchestrated act to commit perjury in order to conceal a negligent death, is acceptable under UK jurisprudence?

Given the gravity, and implications, of my question, with respect Mr Jones, I would expect a straightforward answer please.

Yours faithfully,

David Grothier

Jean James left an annotation ()

"Maurice Kirk, as self made man, staunch royalist and a full believer in natural justice has been tangled in a war with so called chiefs at South Wales Police and has been brutally harassed, beaten and bullied by these so called authorities for over 30 years." ... see link

The likelihood of this force admitting to perjury is low.

http://mauricejohnkirk.wordpress.com/201...

David Grothier left an annotation ()

I am not at war with anyone Jean. None are above the law of the land, and that includes South Wales Police Force.

Although there are those that believe that they are above the law and free to abuse it as is clearly the case in this matter.

All are equal in the eyes of the law, and have equal rights...unless of course there is a deliberate conspiracy to close the eyes of the law.

This regrettably does happen where the police are concerned and have the power to act as both poacher and gamekeeper.

However I will await their reply.

Rob Willis left an annotation ()

From the sounds of it, this police force are attempting to close the complaint via local resolution without ever having consulted you. Without knowing the details, the complaint sounds like it should have been fully investigated too and is not suitable for local resolution. You should contact the IPCC immediately and tell them exactly what has happened. They will set the force straight.

South Wales Police

Mr Grothier.

You appear to be stating in the below email that you have now received Chief Superintendent Jones's report, which you referred to in your email dated 6th March 2012. Therefore do you still wish to proceed with the request for any recorded information on when Chief Superintendent Jones intends to provide you with this report? I must advise you that the likelihood is that there is no recorded information held which answers this question.

Your email below asks 'under the FOI Act 2000 I want to know if you, on behalf of South Wales Police Force, are in fact telling me that there are circumstances when a clearly orchestrated act to commit perjury in order to conceal a negligent death, is acceptable under UK jurisprudence?'

Under Section 8 of the Act, this does not constitute a valid request as it is not asking for recorded information. The Act covers recorded information only. Under FOI, we are not obliged to create information to answer questions.

Whilst I cannot imagine the pain and suffering you have been through as a result of the loss of your daughter, I am sorry to tell you that there is nothing more that the Freedom of Information Office can do for you on this matter. You have been provided with all the recorded information held. We have even been subject of an ICO complaint who were in agreement that there was nothing more that could be provided to you under the Act.

The request below is now the eighth request we have received from you around the subject of perjury allegations. We have more than met our obligations under the Freedom of Information Act.

Section 14 of the Act states that a public authority is not obliged to comply with a request for information if the request is vexatious. Please find below extract from national guidance on this matter:-

Would complying with the request impose a significant burden?
This requires consideration of more than just the cost of compliance. Would responding divert or distract staff from their usual work? This factor alone is not likely to be strong enough.

Is it fair to regard the request as obsessive?
Relevant factors would be the volume and frequency of requests. Request for information the applicant has already seen, or a clear intention to use the request to reopen issues that have already been debated and considered, such as complaints.

Is the request harassing the authority or causing distress to staff?
The focus should be on the effect of the request, not on the requester's intention. A 'reasonable person' must regard the request as harassing or distressing. Relevant factors could include volume and frequency of correspondence, hostile, abusive or offensive language or mingling requests with accusations and complaints.

Whilst we are not going down this route at the moment, I must advise you of this provision within the Act for you to consider and hopefully assist with your understanding of the Freedom of Information Act.

The only other course of action I can recommend is for you to make a complaint to the IPCC (Independent Police Complaints Commission) or to raise your question with a member of the Professional Standards Team with whom you have been corresponding.

I apologise that the Freedom of Information Office cannot assist you any further.

Regards

Eloise Rosser
Freedom of Information Officer
South Wales Police Headquarters
Cowbridge Road
Bridgend
CF31 3SU

External / Allanol: 01656 306163

Internal / Mewnol: 20635

Email: [email address]

Web: www.south-wales.police.uk / www.heddlu-de-cymru.police.uk

show quoted sections

NEW FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REQUEST.

Dear Eloise Rosser
Freedom of Information Officer
South Wales Police Headquarters

Thank you for your reply.

Firstly, I did not “appear” to be saying anything. My correspondence, as it normally is, was perfectly clear: I have Chief Supt Jones’ long awaited report. (you will find it reproduced below)

Recorded Information.

Respectfully, Ms Rosser, I have no alternative but disagree with you in part, but I concede that I could have phrased my request differently as I am indeed asking for recorded information. My request is one of South Wales Police Force’s procedural policy, and as you are fully aware…..all South Wales Police Policy is a matter of written record.. I apologise that I did not make this clear.

It is however most regretful that you cannot grasp that fact, and act within the spirit of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, (The Act), as I would like to believe that we are all working in the best public interests. I have no other motives, as nothing, save the hand of God, can bring our little girl back to us, and therefore I may be able to save some other parents this deeply rooted unbearable daily agony.

However, to move forward: In order to make things easier for you as Freedom of Information Officer, kindly allow me to rephrase my request, and further kindly consider this rephasing as a New FOI Act 2000 request.

NEW REQUEST

Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 I want to know if it is a matter of South Wales Police Force’s written procedural policy not to prosecute for the crime of Perjury, and Conspiracy to commitment perjury?

I understand that Under Section 8 of The Act this request does indeed constitute a valid request as The Act covers recorded information only.

Furthermore, I find that contrary to what you state, I believe that there is much, much more that the Freedom of Information Office can do for me on this matter, and other matters of South Wales Police Force procedure, my further requests, currently under consideration will, I trust, clearly illuminate this.

With respect Ms Rosser, I was unaware that The Act placed limits on the number of requests a person can make when looking for absolute clarity, after all, people who are unwittingly involved in these issues, such as me, are simply looking for openness and honesty, concepts of which, you are obviously aware, were treated evasively, or even barred, to the general public prior to The Act.

Besides do I not have a duty to all other concerned grieving parents, and to the law, to be absolutely thorough as veracity is absolutely essential in order for justice to prevail?

Consequently, I have no malicious intent save the clarity of Justice prevailing..

South Wales Police Force has answered my other FOI Act requests, what seems to be the problem that bothers you with this one?

Please kindly note that I do not have confidence in the office of ICO, who appear to be far from independent, and swayed by policy. Besides, there are certain vague elements of The Act that afford public bodies, “cop outs,” and are definitely not in the true spirit of Justice, (but of course, please excuse me, justice in not law is it?), and the ICO does little to address these failings in The Act.

Also Ms Rosser please note, I have never made any allegations of perjury. The perjury committed in this case is factual, and under the law there can be no legitimate excuse not to prosecute any perpetrator.

I find, after much deeply frustrating soul searching, that only the evil mined ponerologists would want a continuation of the unnecessary deaths of the vulnerable innocents at the hands of negligent doctors, those who kill and cover up, and remain unaccountable to both the surviving relatives, and the law.

South Wales Police Force is there to protect the public and uphold the law. That is, in fact, their sworn oath of public duty!

Ms Rosser, may I suggest that in matters such as these, before you start to bander about words such as vexatious, I suggest, with respect, that you know the exact meaning thereof. VIZ.

Dictionary definition: Vexatious
   
adjective
1.
causing vexation; troublesome; annoying: a vexatious situation.
2.
Law . (of legal actions) instituted without sufficient grounds and serving only to cause annoyance to the defendant.

I can understand South Wales Police getting annoyed at being discovered to be totally inadequate in this matter. There are, and always have been, sufficient grounds for my complains. It is safe to say that any jurist or legal academic would concur that Perjury is perjury, and in this case the seriousness of it is compounded by the fact that there was a high conspiracy to commit the act.

Please therefore kindly inform me how can it possibly be conceived as being a troublesome, annoying, and a vexatious situation when all that is sought is clarity, and that obviously, the law of the land be upheld? Indeed, The Perjury Act 1911 is law that is indeed central to the whole of the criminal justice system!

The Perjury Act 1911 was introduce to the Statute Books as an Act to consolidate and simplify the Law relating to Perjury and kindred offences, subsequently the definition thereof, as contained within the Perjury Act, is clear.. I was there at the Inquest into the death of my child, I was also at the hospital.
It was so obvious that those giving evidence, save but one, knew that what they stated during the inquest, under oath, was false, and when later irrefutably proven to be so were quick to make voluntary admissions of the negligence that killed our beloved child and so bitterly denied during the Inquest proceedings and during the five and a half years of litigation! You can not have it both ways!

It is highly regretable Ms Rosser that the rest of your letter I find to be of grave concern and absolutely no constructive need for such content to be conveyed to me. I considered it to be harassing, intimidating and threatening.

However, please be assured that you may go down any road that you chose, and can do so with my blessings. There remains much more in these issues to be open to a proper scrutiny, and while there remains avenues open for me to continue to question the decision of South Wales Police in this matter, I will exercise my legal right to do so!

It is commonly quoted these days that Britain is now a morally defunct, broken society. The fact that all I seek to achieve is a betterment of treatment for innocent vulnerable patients entering our hospitals, and a greater degree of accountability from Hospital staff, provokes such a response from yourself, would appear to affirm this concept….and I quote:. A 'reasonable person' must regard the request as harassing or distressing. Relevant factors could include volume and frequency of correspondence, hostile, abusive or offensive language or mingling requests with accusations and complaints.

Whilst we are not going down this route at the moment, I must advise you of this provision within the Act for you to consider and hopefully assist with your understanding of the Freedom of Information Act.

A reasonable person could reasonably expect a reasonable standard of medial care from what was designated, “A Specialist Paediatric Unit, especially when that reasonable person’s child is an emergency admission with a fresh 7 inch scar on her tiny chest just two short weeks after open heart surgery!.

Furthermore, please be assured that I fully understand the Freedom of Information Act 2000, in both spirit, intention, and law. I also fully understand that there are those who would attempt to abuse Section 14 of the Act, for whatever devious reasons, rather than be upright, honest and straightforward. I also understand that it is the right and proper thing to do, in fact it’s a duty upon us all, to protect and preserve life!

As stated above, I have made a further New FOI Act request, therefore, with respect, please kindly comply with the same, as indeed the law requires you to do so.

There is nothing vexatious intended, nor is it my intention to be seen as harassing the authority or causing distress to staff, nor should responding to my request divert or distract staff from their usual work, as my New FOI request is made specifically to you, Ms Eloise Rosser, the Freedom of Information Officer, whose usual work this is!

What is intended in my New FOI Act request is specifically to clearly establish, beyond all doubt if it is a matter of South Wales Police Force’s written procedural policy not to prosecute for the crime of Perjury and Conspiracy to commitment perjury?

Of course you may, if you so wish, in order to comply with my New request under The Act, consult with Chief Supt Jones of the Professional Standards Team with whom I have been corresponding.

In all sincerity, I must add though, that I was there at the hospital when Dr Skanikop, the only person, able to correctly diagnose our child’s condition came on duty and the panic started after all day of little and sub-standard care. Its was not Matthes who made this diagnoses as CS Jones stated….perhaps you can now understand my need for thoroughness and clarity in all these issues especially when considering that South Wales Police Force’s, Supt Mark Lynch and Ken Issac gave me their personal undertakings, over and above their duty and that of the South Wales Police Force, for the most thorough of investigations

Also Ms Rosser, and anyone else it may concern, kindly remember that I was there when I saw our beloved little girl close her eyes for the last time. I was there, when barely an hour after we lost Stephie ,Jean Matthes, A PERSON DEVOID OF ALL GENUINE FEELING, AND UNABLE TO LOOK ME IN THE EYE WHEN SHE TOLD ME THAT THEY DID ALL THAT THEY COULD HAVE DONE.

I was there a week later to the day when Matthes, who had refused to give me my child’s notes, was ordered to hand over my child’s medical notes, and when doing so stated to me in front of a Mr Powell, “I thought I had seen the last of you”.

I was there when the CEO of Swansea NHS Trust, David M Williams, told me to go away as I would never understand the complexities involved in the treatment of my child and that I had no chance of proving negligence. I observed Swansea NHS Trust in league with Welsh Health Legal Service hastily assign two so called independent experts to support their claim that they were not negligent, (experts such as these should be investigated as they were obviously bought and paid for in order to both close and protect Ranks.– Also, please bear this in mind––- its amazing just how far certain people and organisations will go once exposed for what they truly are. Such were the effects of Stephie’s death that I suffered a heart attack and subsequently underwent a triple by pass. On sound advice given, and taken, I had the operation at Bristol Heart Institute which it was felt, in my case, was the better, and safer, option over Morriston Hospital. I was told at Bristol that Morriston Hospital would contact me for the obviously much needed essential after care, treatment and monitoring…….they never did and I am still waiting!!!! Is that not more negligence, or something more sinister with a touch of malice aforethought?

It is highly regretable that it would appear that no matter how serious the issue, one cannot question the conduct of Swansea NHS Trust without, in certain circumstances, putting one’s life in danger,. Sadly, from your letter it would also appear that South Wales Police Force would rather imply certain unwarranted tones in their correspondence when in fact we should be working together in the better interests of NHS patient care.

Of course there is much, much more I could say, but will reserve, only to add that since we lost Stephanie, as Mark Lynch knows, I have been in touch with so many bereaved parents to know that my case is not unique. NHS Trusts cover up nearly all of the time when a patient dies through their negligence. I believe that any decent person would say enough is enough, and that its time to drastically improve things. It is commonly accepted that any society is measured by the manner in which it cares for its most vulnerable.

My life is not important: a big chunk of me died when our Stephie did. Your attempts to intimidate are wasted on me.

Above all else there must be both clarity in these issues, and the proper observance of the law.
This we owe to the millions who made the ultimate sacrifice in two World Wars in order to ensure that the Rule of Law is observed in a free and democratic Britain.

I will await your reply under the Freedom of Information Act within 20 working days. Upon receipt of the same I will consider matters further.

Yours sincerely David Grothier.

Copy of CS Tim Jones' Report to me, for your information 8ammend to conform with this web sites personal data policies!:

South Wales Police

Professional Standards Department.
Complaint Reference CO 402/2011

A Report of the findings of a Review of the actions of the Police in an examination of the circumstances of the death of Stephanie Lauren GROTHIER, who died at Singleton Hospital in Swansea on the 21st May 1997, aged 7 years.

The Review has been conducted in relation to Complaints against the Police which have been made by:-

Mr David GROTHIER.
Report Prepared by;-
David JENKINS
Senior Investigator 90059. Date;- 20th February 2012.

INTRODUCTION

On the 15th August 2011, a ‘complaint against the police’ was made by Mr David GROTHIER. Mr GROTHIER is the father of Stephanie Lauren GROTHIER, who died at Singleton Hospital in Swansea, on the 21st May 1997, aged 7 years.

The ‘complaint against the police’, was received from Mr GROTHIER by South Wales Police via an e-mail communication, dated 15th August 2011. The catalyst for Mr GROTHIER seeking to pursue a ‘complaint against the police’ at this time, appears to be his dissatisfaction with the response to a ‘Freedom of Information’ (FOI) application, which he had made to South Wales Police.

The FOI application was made in relation to material concerning an investigation into the circumstances of the death of Stephanie GROTHIER, which had been conducted by South Wales Police between 2003 and 2008.

The circumstances which gave rise to the police investigation are outlined as follows;-

In the early part of 2003, Mr David GROTHIER made criminal allegations against the Swansea NHS Trust in relation to the treatment and care given to Stephanie at Singleton hospital on the day of her death.

Mr GROTHIER alleged criminal negligence and perjury on the part of the NHS Trust staff who were involved in treating Stephanie. The criminal allegations which were made to the police by David GROTHIER were allocated to the then Detective Inspector Mark LYNCH for examination.

Detective Inspector LYNCH was, at that time, serving as a Divisional Detective within the Criminal Investigation Department of the Swansea Division of South Wales Police.

The complaint against the police which Mr GROTHIER now wishes to pursue, concerns the conduct of Mr LYNCH in taking forward his inquiries into the circumstances surrounding Stephanie’s death.

Note;- It should be noted that during the life of this investigation Mark LYNCH was promoted twice and changed roles within the South Wales Police. At the conclusion of the investigation in 2008, he held the rank of Detective Superintendent.

ALLEGATIONS SUBJECT OF COMPLAINT.

The allegations of misconduct which are made against Detective Superintendent LYNCH are contained within an e-mail communication received from Mr GROTHIER, dated 15th August 2011. The complaint is made in the following terms;

“Freedom of Information Request (Internal review 390/11)

I have carefully considered your reply and it is not acceptable. I find that the coroner’s comments have no bearing whatsoever upon any decision to prosecute for perjury, which is a totally separate issue and a serious criminal offence. It appears to me to be the usual scenario whereby doctors are afford protection over the deaths of the innocent.

This is a far cry from what both Mark LYNCH and Ken ISAAC promised me as the quality of their investigation.

I can only deduce that there is a conspiracy to cover up these matters and therefore to pervert the course of justice, as perjury is perjury.

You leave me with no option by to make allegations that South Wales Police, Supt Mark LYNCH in particular, as chief investigating officer is guilty of a Conspiracy to Pervert the Course of Justice.

I would request that you appoint another non Welsh police force to investigate my accusations.

Sincerely
David GROTHIER.”

(Note; - text reproduced verbatim).

In simple terms – Mr GROTHIER is alleging that hospital staff lied in the evidence given to the Coroner at the inquest held in relation to the circumstances of the death of Stephanie GROTHIER, and that the failure by South Wales Police (through the actions of Mr LYNCH) to conduct an investigation, and instigate criminal proceedings in that regard, would amount to a conspiracy between Mr LYNCH and the Coroner to pervert the course of justice.

RESPONSE.

South Wales Police has responded to the allegations made against Mr LYNCH as follows;-

On receipt of the e-mail communication from Mr GROTHIER, the matter was referred to the Professional Standards Department for consideration. Having regard to the gravity of the issues surrounding the complaint, and the serious nature of the allegations made against Mr LYNCH, a decision was taken to record the matter as a ‘Complaint against the Police’ in accordance with the provisions of the Police Reform Act 2002.

Note;- The complaint has been allocated SWP PSD Reference CO 402/2011

Having made the decision to record the complaint, and given the nature of the allegations made against Detective Superintendent LYNCH, the matter was made subject of a ‘mandatory referral’ to the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC), for consideration and direction by the Commission, regarding the appropriate ‘Mode of Investigation’.

Note; - In deciding upon the most appropriate means by which to resolve the complaint, South Wales Police recognised the fact that, for the purposes of the ‘complaints legislation’, the complaint which Mr GROTHIER was now seeking to pursue against Detective Superintendent LYNCH was technically ‘out of time’ in that it was made more than 12 months after the investigation conducted by Mr LYNCH had been completed.

With that in mind, consideration was given to the question of whether or not the complaint would be most appropriately dealt with by way of application for ‘dispensation’.
Notwithstanding the entitlement to apply for a ‘dispensation’, and given the background circumstances which gave rise to this complaint, and the gravity of the allegations which have been made, South Wales Police concluded that it would be more appropriate, and better meet the needs of Mr GROTHIER, if the complaint was recorded, and some examination of the actions of the police undertaken in order to ensure that the police response to the criminal allegations has been appropriate.

That being the case, a proposal was made to the IPCC that the Professional Standards Department be allowed to conduct a limited review of the police actions in this case to ensure that they were appropriate, and to confirm that there is no evidence of inappropriate conduct on the part of Detective Superintendent LYNCH.

On the 4th October 2011, South Wales Police received notification from the IPCC that the allegation should be dealt with locally by South Wales Police

HISTORY AND BACKGROUND

Stephanie Lauren GROTHIER was born on the 15th October 1989. Stephanie was one of twins and she was born with a small ‘ventricular septal defect’ (hole in the heart). Her twin sister was not so affected.

On the 23rd April 1997, at the age of 7 years, Stephanie had the hole in her heart surgically repaired at the Bristol Children’s Hospital. This was a precautionary procedure to safeguard against any problems developing for Stephanie in later life. It would seem that the procedure was conducted without problem and there was no evidence of any post operative difficulty.

Stephanie was due to have a follow up examination by medical staff at Swansea on the 6th June of 1997.

However, on the 15th May 1997, she became ill and was suffering from vomiting and diarrhoea. This continued for the next few days and it is apparent that several other members of the family were also suffering from Vomiting and Diarrhoea

On the 19th May 1997, Stephanie was seen at her home by her General Practitioner because, whilst the diarrhoea had subsided, the vomiting was persisting and this gave her parents cause for concern.

By the 21st May 1997, the vomiting had not desisted and such was the concern of her parents that Stephanie was seen by an ‘on call’ doctor at about 5.45 am that morning.

The on call doctor was also concerned at Stephanie’s condition, and decided to refer her to hospital.

Stephanie arrived at the hospital at about 7.00am on the 21st May 1997. At about 8.00am that morning she was admitted to the Paediatric Unit at Singleton Hospital.

At this time Stephanie was accompanied by her mother Mrs Ann Elaine GROTHIER. Upon admission Stephanie was examined by Dr Sioned EVANS, the Senior House Officer for Paediatrics (SHO). Dr EVANS was made aware of the history of Stephanie’s heart problems and of the fact that she had recently undergone surgery.

Given the circumstances surrounding her admission to hospital, and the symptoms displayed upon examination, the SHO made a diagnosis of Gastroenteritis. However, it is significant that the SHO also recorded hearing sounds (‘crackles’ or ‘creps’) on the chest, and the SHO felt it appropriate that consideration be given to Stephanie having a Chest X-Ray examination in that regard.

However, it would seem that Chest X-Rays are not routinely given to children unless absolutely necessary and, with that in mind, the SHO referred the decision regarding the Chest X-Ray to the Specialist Registrar who would be examining Stephanie later that morning.

At about 9.15am that day, Stephanie was examined by the Specialist Registrar, Doctor Katina KONTOS. Doctor KONTOS already knew Stephanie and she was aware of Stephanie’s heart problems from examinations conducted during previous visits to the hospital.

Dr KONTOS was also fully aware of the findings of the examination conducted by the SHO, Dr Sioned EVANS.

Following her examination, Dr KONTOS agreed with the diagnosis of Dr Sioned EVANS and concluded that Stephanie was suffering with Gastroenteritis.

However, with regard to the question of the chest X-Ray, Dr KONTOS stated that auscultation (listening to sounds within the body usually by means of a stethoscope) of the chest was normal with no added sounds. Dr KONTOS concluded that a chest X-Ray was not necessary.

Note;- It is significant to mention at this point, that Mr GROTHIER would later contend that, at the time of the examination, Dr KONTOS told Stephanie’s mother, Mrs Ann Elaine GROTHIER, that she had also heard abnormal sounds, described as ‘Creps’ (Crepitations), during the chest examination.

In a statement prepared for the inquest, Stephanie’s mother states that Dr KONTOS mentioned hearing ‘Creps’ when conducting her examination.

This particular anomaly will be addressed later in the report. However, and suffice to say at this juncture, that;-

The suggestion that Dr KONTOS had heard ‘creps’ during her examination of Stephanie was denied by Dr KRONTOS in her evidence given during the Inquest, and the notes of Dr KONTOS do not make reference to hearing ‘Creps’ during her examination.

Mrs Ann Elaine GROTHIER was not called to give verbal evidence at the inquest so could not challenge or be challenged in that regard.

Returning now to events of the 21st May 1997, Stephanie does not appear to have been examined again by a doctor until about 4.00pm, when nursing staff at the Paediatric Unit asked for a doctor to see Stephanie as she had not been tolerating fluids and they considered that she required fluids to be supplied intravenously (by drip feed).

At this time Stephanie was seen by another Senior House Officer Dr Dorothy SCHANZ. Attempts by the Senior House Officer to site a tube into the back of Stephanie’s hand failed and assistance was requested.

Another Specialist Registrar, Dr Dawn EDWARDS attended and examined Stephanie. Dr EDWARDS assessed Stephanie to be dehydrated.

Dr Eamon MURPHY successfully sited an intravenous tube and the supply of fluids to Stephanie was commenced. Tests were ordered by the Registrar, Dr Dawn EDWARDS, and a Staff Grade Doctor was asked to review Stephanie’s condition when the results were available.

The Staff Grade Doctor reviewed Stephanie at approximately 7.45pm. By this time, Stephanie’s condition had deteriorated and a Consultant Paediatrician, Dr Jean MATTHES, was summoned from home.

Dr MATTHES arrived a short time later, and upon examination she found Stephanie to be very ill. Dr MATTHES made an initial diagnosis of Hypovolaemia, (a blood disorder resulting in a decrease in the volume of circulating blood), septicaemia (blood poisoning), toxic shock syndrome or cardiac tamponade.

Stephanie was given treatment and initially she appeared to improve a little. However, her blood pressure remained un-recordable, and it was apparent to Dr MATTHES that her condition was deteriorating.

At 8.40pm Dr MATTHES requested the attendance of an anaesthetist who arrived some minutes later. The anaesthetist was asked to take steps to anaesthetise and ventilate Stephanie and this was done. A more senior anaesthetist was summoned and confirmed that the actions taken were correct.

However, Stephanie remained deeply cyanosed (oxygen in the blood dangerously diminished) and cardiac massage was commenced.

It would seem that, whilst Stephanie was in fact suffering with gastroenteritis, she was also suffering from a build up of fluids around her heart (Cardiac Tamponade). This meant that pressure on her heart was preventing the heart pumping oxygenated blood around her body.

At approximately 9.15pm that evening, Dr MATTHES telephoned a Consultant Paediatric Cardiologist at the University Hospital of Wales. The Consultant at Cardiff agreed with Dr MATTHES’ suspected diagnosis of ‘Cardiac Tamponade’.

The Consultant advised Dr MATTHES to put a needle into Stephanie’s pericardium (membrane surrounding the heart) to drain off the fluid which was collecting there and thereby relieve the pressure on her heart.

Dr MATTHES did this and removed a volume of fluid. However, it would seem that this is an extremely complex and delicate process and the needle kinked (bent during the procedure).

As a consequence, Dr MATTHES had to repeat the procedure when again a further volume of fluid was removed from around Stephanie’s heart.

Further treatments were given to Stephanie but sadly, all attempts at resuscitation failed. At 10.00pm that evening it was agreed that there was no chance for Stephanie to recover and that any further attempts at resuscitation should be discontinued.

In summary, the simple facts are that, on being admitted to hospital, Stephanie was diagnosed with gastroenteritis and was treated in that regard.

However she was also suffering with the effects of the ‘Cardiac Tamponade’. This condition was not immediately recognised by the hospital staff and Stephanie continued to deteriorate throughout the day until a point during the evening when the condition was recognised by Dr MATTHES, and attempts were made to treat her.

Despite the attempts of Dr MATTHES to treat the condition, recognised by Dr MATTHES,

POST MORTEM FINDINGS.

A post mortem examination was conducted on the 23rd May 1997, by the Pathologist Dr G M VUJANIC. A report on the findings of the Post Mortem examination was prepared by Dr VUJANIC, dated 16th July 1997.

The Pathologists opinion as to the cause of death was given as;-

1(a) Cardiac Tamponade. (Heart compression by fluid in the pericardial space).
1(b) Pericarditis and Myocarditis. (Inflammation of the muscular layer of the heart wall and the membrane surrounding the heart).
1(c) Acute Gastroenterocolitis (Inflammation of the intestinal tract)

2 Congenital heart disease (Atrial Septal Defect) – surgically repaired.

In concluding his report the Pathologist states;-

“A post mortem examination of this 8 4/12 year old girl confirmed the presence of the repaired congenital heart disease (atrial septal defect). However, the most important post-mortem finding was the presence of a large amount of fluid in the pericardial sac (230 ml at the time of Post Mortem, plus 250ml evacuated during resuscitation) which resulted in cardiac tamponade. The same fluid was found in the pleural (350ml in the right and 200 ml in the left) and abdominal (350 ml) cavities. Biochemical examination of the fluid proved it to be blood serum. Histological examination of the heart revealed marked lymphocytic pericarditis and patchy myocarditis.

In addition, there was unequivocal evidence of moderate inflammation of the whole gastrointestinal tract, most likely of a viral origin.

Late cardiac tamponade is a rare complication occurring in 0.7 – 1.3% of cases from 5 – 287 days (median 16 days) after open heart surgery.

However, it is unlikely that cardiac tamponade in this particular case is related to open heart surgery – while the finding of pericarditis would have still been consistent with it, the presence of acute inflammation in the myocardium clearly indicates different aetiology. I believe the most likely explanation is that both pericarditis and myocarditis developed secondary to the viral gastrointestinal infection leading to massive leakage of blood serum resulting in cardiac tamponade.

Therefore, I have no reason to suppose that death was due to other than natural causes.

COMPLAINANT’S REACTION .

Following Stephanie’s death, David GROTHIER was angry with members of the NHS Trust. He clearly blamed Staff at Singleton Hospital for her death and he alleged criminal negligence on the part of the medical staff concerned in the care and treatment of his daughter. He believed, and still believes, that they were directly responsible for Stephanie’s death.

The initial point of focus for blame by Mr GROTHIER appears to have been the actions of Dr Jean MATTHES who was the Doctor who late in the evening was called to attend to Stephanie.

In a number of items of correspondence, both with the Trust and with the Coroner,

As stated, Dr MATTHES was called from home during the evening of the 21st May 1997, when staff became concerned that Stephanie’s condition was deteriorating.

Upon examination, Dr MATTHES realised that Stephanie was suffering with a build up of fluid around the heart and she took urgent steps to try to treat Stephanie. She was unfamiliar with the technique of withdrawing fluid which had collected around the heart and she took advice in that regard. Sadly, her efforts were in vain.

NOTE;- The actions of Dr MATTHES that evening have been subject of in depth examination by various experts, and from a number of quarters and perspectives including the General Medical Council. Dr MATTHES has not only been found to be blameless but has been commended for the actions which she took to try to save Stephanie.

However, Mr GROTHIER was also extremely angry over perceived failings on the part of NHS Trust staff who by his account, should have detected the symptoms of cardiac ‘tamponade’ very much earlier in the day, and taken steps by means of X-Ray examination to confirm the problem and give Stephanie the proper care and treatment, with a good chance of saving her life.

From the outset, Mr GROTHIER sought to challenge the actions of the Swansea NHS Trust from a number of quarters. A more detailed account of the actions taken by David GROTHIER is set out in the following sections of this report.

However, at this point it is worthy of note that following the death of his daughter, Mr GROTHIER repeatedly challenged the competence and integrity of the NHS Staff and directed his allegations both to Senior Members of the Trust, and to Mr Richard MORGAN, the Coroner having conduct of the Inquest into Stephanie’s death.

CORONER’S INQUEST

The Inquest into the death of Stephanie GROTHIER was initially opened and then adjourned to a later date. The Inquest was held at the County Hall in Swansea on the 10th May 1999. As stated, the Coroner who presided over the inquest was Mr Richard MORGAN. Also present was legal counsel – Mr Richard PARTRIDGE on behalf of the NHS Trust.

David GROTHIER was legally represented at the inquest by Richard FOLLIS and Irene TAYLOR of CHALLINORS LYON CLARK Solicitors.

The SWANSEA NHS Trust was also represented by Miss J LEWIS of Welsh Legal Services.

Prior requests made by Mr GROTHIER to have the Inquest heard before a Jury were not acceded to by the Coroner, Mr Richard MORGAN, on the grounds that the case did not fall within the criteria which would require the involvement of a Jury.

The proceedings were not tape recorded and we are reliant upon notes taken by the Coroner, and by Mr GROTHIER’S legal representative, for a record of the conduct of the inquest.

During the lead up to the inquest, Mr MORGAN responded to requests by Mr GROTHIER to delay the inquest on the grounds of illness.

The Coroner also accepted representation from Mr GROTHIER’S Solicitor with regard to certain of the witnesses who would be called to give evidence.

It is apparent that the following individuals gave verbal evidence to the Inquest;-

Dr G M VUJANIC - Post Mortem Examination
Dr Sioned EVANS - SHO who admitted Stephanie.
Dr Katina KONTOS - Registrar – Examination.
Dr Dorothee SCHANZ - SHO – Examination.
Dr Dawn EDWARDS - Registrar – Examination.
Dr Ravi SANIKOPP - Specialist paediatrics
Lynda PINELL - Stephanie’s Aunt.
Dr Jean MATTHES - Consultant Paediatrician.
Dr Rhodri MORGAN - Consultant
Dr Michael COSGROVE - Consultant

During the course of giving evidence the witnesses referred to their witness statement accounts which had been pre-prepared for the purposes of the inquest. They were ‘cross-examined on their evidence both by Mr FOLLIS and by Mr PARTRIDGE.

During the course of examination it is apparent that each of the doctors who were involved in the care of Stephanie on the day of her death was questioned in some detail regarding their actions.

The only hint at any potential irregularity in evidence which was raised during the inquest appears to be:-

the order of the medical notes relating to Stephanie’s treatment, where it is suggested by Mr FOLLIS that a note timed at 4.00pm appears between the notes of Dr Sioned EVANS (8.00am examination) and Dr KONTOS (9.15am) examination.

The fact that in her statement, Stephanie’s mother suggests that Dr KONTOS mentioned hearing ‘Creps’ (noises in the chest) during her examination when Dr KONTOS stated that she had not.

At the end of the Inquest Mr Richard MORGAN concluded;-
“The cause of death was due to tamponade, myocarditis and acute entero-colitis.”

VERDICT:- Death due to natural causes.

From the material available to the Reviewing Officer, it is very apparent that David GROTHIER did not accept the verdict of the Coroner and there is evidence of an exchange of correspondence in the form of e-mails between Mr GROTHIER and Richard MORGAN in which Mr GROTHIER challenges the verdict and the integrity of the process.

The position escalates to the stage where Mr GROTHIER is scathing of the actions of Richard MORGAN and accuses the Coroner of being involved in a conspiracy with members of the Trust to pervert the course of justice.

It would seem that due to the insulting and aggressive nature of the communications received from Mr GROTHIER, the Coroner reached a point where he ran out of patience and refused to enter into any further communication with Mr GROTHIER.

ALLEGATIONS AGAINST SWANSEA NHS TRUST.

Following Stephanie’s death, David GROTHIER alleged neglect on the part of the medical staff in their care and treatment of his daughter. He believes that they were directly responsible for her death.

Whilst, David GROTHIER has attacked all aspects of his daughter’s treatment by the hospital staff that day, nevertheless, the main crux of this case appears to be the question of whether the heart condition should have been detected very much earlier in the day by means of a chest x-ray examination which medical experts suggest, would, in all probability, have revealed the problem of the fluid collecting around Stephanie’s heart, which could then have been treated with a good chance of saving her life.

Whether the ‘Cardiac Tamponade’ occurred as a consequence of the viral infection, or was in fact linked to Stephanie’s heart condition and recent surgery, subsequently became a matter of much debate by medical experts.

Nevertheless, and irrespective of how the ‘tamponade’ was caused, Mr GROTHIER considers that it should have been detected at an early stage following Stephanie’s admission to hospital. That is the basis of the allegation of criminal negligence.

In seeking remedy, it is apparent that David GROTHIER made a complaint to the General Medical Council regarding the actions of Dr MATTHES, and he also commenced proceedings to bring a Civil Action against the Authority in relation to his daughter’s death.

Note;- The General Medical Council concluded that Dr Jean MATTHES had acted appropriately in her actions in this case and no action was taken in relation to Mr GROTHIER’S allegations. Mr GROTHIER was formally advised of the findings of the GMC in that regard.

The Civil Action was concluded at the end of 2002, with an acceptance of liability for negligence on the part of the Swansea NHS Trust. Mr GROTHIER was paid a financial settlement of £20,000

NOTE;- MR GROTHIER has emphasised throughout that his motivation for bringing a civil action was never financial. He very obviously abhorred the idea of receiving financial compensation in relation to the loss of his daughter. Mr GROTHIER’S motivation has always been to obtain an acceptance from the Swansea NHS TRUST that they did not give the proper care and treatment to Stephanie and that the lack of care afforded to Stephanie caused her death.

At the conclusion of the Civil Action taken against the Trust, and in the early part of 2003, Mr GROTHIER sought to pursue a criminal prosecution for ‘gross negligence manslaughter’ on the part of the Health Care workers who treated his daughter.

In making his criminal complaint to the Police, Mr GROTHIER also alleged that Medical Staff had lied in the evidence which they had provided to the inquest in relation to the treatment given to Stephanie.

The criminal allegations were referred to South Wales Police and, in March 2003, they were allocated to the then Detective Inspector Mark LYNCH who, as stated, was at that time serving in the Swansea Police Division.

Following an examination of the case, and after seeking expert medical opinion and pursuing enquires with both the Coroner, and the Crown Prosecution Service, Mark LYNCH concluded that there was no realistic prospect of pursuing criminal proceedings in relation to the death of Stephanie.

Mark LYNCH also concluded that there was no foundation upon which to base a criminal investigation into the allegation that NHS Trust staff had perjured themselves at the Inquest.

The enquiries undertaken by the police were concluded in the latter part of 2008. By this time Mark LYNCH had advanced to the rank of Detective Superintendent and was serving with the Specialist Crime Department of South Wales Police.

As stated, Mr GROTHIER resides in Spain and the written notification of the findings of the police enquiries were formally communicated to Mr GROTHIER by Detective Superintendent LYNCH in an e-mail communication, dated 16th December 2008.

In recent months, Mr GROTHIER has sought to obtain further information from South Wales Police by way of the Freedom of Information provisions. However, he has been unsuccessful in that regard, and is now seeking to pursue a complaint of ‘conspiracy to pervert the course of justice’ against Detective Superintendent LYNCH.

REVIEWING OFFICER.

Mr David JENKINS, a Senior Investigative Assistant employed within the South Wales Police Professional Standards Department, has been appointed to conduct the work of the Review into the actions undertaken by Detective Superintendent LYNCH.

The Review has been conducted in accordance with the following terms of Reference;-

TERMS OF REFERENCE

To review the actions taken by Detective Superintendent Mark LYNCH in response to the criminal allegations made by David GROTHIER to establish:-

if there is any evidence to support or negate the allegation that Detective Superintendent LYNCH conspired to cover up matters and pervert the course of justice.

If there is any evidence of misconduct on the part of Detective Superintendent Mark LYNCH in taking forward his investigation.

The review will also seek to identify any individual or organisational learning for South Wales Police arising in this matter and make recommendations as appropriate in that regard.

METHODOLOGY

The Review has been conducted in accordance with the following methodology;-

Recover relevant material used by the Investigating Officer in the conduct of his examination of the criminal allegations made by Mr GROTHIER.

Identify the criminal allegations contained within the statement of criminal complaint made by Mr GROTHIER in relation to the death of his daughter.

Identify and consider the actions which were taken by Detective Superintendent LYNCH in response to those allegations.

Consider the information and opinions of those with specialist knowledge who were consulted as part of the work conducted by Superintendent LYNCH.

Consider the advice and opinion provided by the representatives of the Coroner’s Court and the Crown Prosecution Service.

Confirm whether the work conducted by Detective Superintendent LYNCH has properly addressed the criminal allegations made by Mr GROTHIER.

CRIMINAL ALLEGATIONS

A witness statement recording the criminal allegations made to the police was taken from Mr GROTHIER on the 24th July 2003.

In his statement, Mr GROTHIER provides an overview of his family circumstances, and the history of the heart problem experienced by Stephanie, which led to the operation to repair the hole in her heart, which was conducted at Bristol Hospital on the 23rd of April 1997.

Mr GROTHIER goes on to describe the events leading to Stephanie’s admission to Singleton Hospital on the morning of the 21st May 1997, following a prolonged period of vomiting and diarrhoea which had persisted over several days.

Mr GROTHIER describes the events which occurred that day leading up to Stephanie’s death and the events in the days which followed. He describes his interaction with the medical staff and his dissatisfaction with the explanations which were provided to him and his family by representatives of the Swansea NHS Trust.

As a consequence, Mr GROTHIER instructed his legal representatives, Challinors Lyon Clark (Solicitors) of Newhall Street, Birmingham, to commence civil proceedings against the Swansea NHS trust alleging that Stephanie’s death was due to the negligence of the NHS trust, by its servants and agents.

The claim was denied by Swansea NHS Trust, and a defence put forward on their behalf. However, on the 4th November 2002, Welsh Health Legal Services, acting on the instructions of the trust, submitted to judgement rather than allowing the matter to continue to trial.

The following statement was made in support of that decision;-

“I am instructed by the Swansea NHS Trust to submit to judgement now, rather than allowing the matter to continue to trial. The Trust accepted that if a chest X-Ray had been carried out earlier in the day, at the time that the Senior House Officer believed she heard some ‘crackles’ on Stephanie’s chest, then it is likely that, on the balance of probabilities, pleural and pericardial effusions would have been seen which would have alerted the hospital staff to Stephanie’s cardiac condition and permitted them to obtain earlier assistance from the hospital where she had previously had heart surgery.”

Mr GROTHIER was awarded the sum of £20,000 in settlement of the claim.

In continuing his statement of complaint, Mr GROTHIER emphasises his belief that Swansea NHS Staff involved in the care and treatment of his daughter were grossly negligent and that their negligence resulted in the unnecessary death of his daughter.

Mr GROTHIER goes on to describe events at the Inquest into Stephanie’s death which took place at County Hall, Swansea, before the Coroner, Mr Richard MORGAN, on the 10th May 1999.

Mr GROTHIER was present at the inquest and he and his wife were also legally represented.

In his statement, Mr GROTHIER expresses the view that in giving evidence at the inquest, some of the witnesses have wilfully stated things which they knew to be false or did not believe to be true. He believes that they are guilty of perjury in that regard.

Mr GROTHIER was very clearly dissatisfied with the verdict of the Coroner following the Inquest into Stephanie’s death. As stated, there is evidence of an exchange of e.mail communications between Mr GROTHIER and Mr Richard MORGAN in which, quite forcefully, Mr GROTHIER expresses his dissatisfaction.

In conclusion, Mr GROTHIER makes criminal complaint of ‘Gross Negligence Manslaughter’ against members of the NHS Trust or the Trust itself and of Perjury on the part of certain members of the Trust who gave evidence at the inquest into Stephanie’s death.

Mr GROTHIER’S allegation of criminal manslaughter is based upon the Swansea Health Trust’s acceptance of liability at the Civil Claim.

His allegation that members of the trust committed Perjury during the Inquest held on the May 1997, appears to be based upon the fact that they had denied negligence at the inquest and subsequently admitted negligence during the Civil proceedings.

CONDUCT OF THE POLICE INVESTIGATION.

On receipt of the enquiry, an investigative plan was mapped out by the then Detective Inspector Mark LYNCH which includes;-

Establish precise nature of the complaint.
Review original case papers following liaison with H. M. Coroner and Mr GROTHIER’S Solicitors.
Liaise with National Crime Faculty and utilise independent expert to review case
Subsequent liaison with Crown Prosecution Service.

The Objective at that stage was to establish whether there was any evidence to support the criminal allegations and provide a foundation upon which to base a criminal investigation.

An examination of the Case Papers subject of this review confirms that Detective Inspector LYNCH was supported in his early investigations by Detective Sergeant Peter WRIGHT and their actions were recorded in the investigative notes maintained by the Officers. The inquiries undertaken were progressed as follows;-

In July 2003, the officers visited Spain where they met with Mr GROTHIER and obtained a detailed witness statement of complaint as described in the earlier sections of this report.

Enquiries were undertaken to obtain the necessary case papers from the various parties involved including, the TRUST, The Coroner, and the Legal Representatives.

In April 2004, Mr LYNCH took receipt of the Case Papers compiled by the Solicitors who had acted for Mr GROTHIER throughout the period following Stephanie’s death up to the conclusion of the Civil Action.

In May 2004, liaison commenced with the National Crime Faculty to identify a suitable independent expert witness to review the case.

In January 2005, Case Papers were forwarded to Professor Tony BUSUTILL from Edinburgh University Medical School in order that he was able to review the case papers against the allegations of Mr GROTHIER and provide expert opinion on the matter of negligence against a criminal burden of proof.

NOTE;- Professor BUSUTILL is recognised by the National Crime Faculty as a leading expert in the field of Pathology.

In November 2005, the then Chief Inspector LYNCH was made aware of concerns, which were being expressed by Mr GROTHIER, via the South Wales Police Professional Standards Department, regarding the length of time being taken by the police to conclude the investigation.

In response, Detective Chief Inspector LYNCH sought advice and direction from Detective Superintendent Ken ISAAC of the Specialist Crime Investigation Department. Detective Superintendent ISAAC agreed to review and monitor the progress of the enquiry on an ongoing basis.

In January 2006, Professor BUSUTILL provided initial confirmation of his findings. Professor BUSUTILL concluded as follows;-

“Having read through all the large amount of documentary evidence collected in this case including all the information in relation to the Civil Liability Case, I am of the considered opinion that there is not sufficient factual evidence to indicate that a charge of gross negligence manslaughter can be formulated in this case.”

Having regard to the findings of Professor BUSUTILL, and in January 2006, a review meeting was held between Detective Superintendent ISAAC, DCI LYNCH and Detective Sergeant Peter WRIGHT who continued to assist Mark LYNCH with the inquiry.

During the course of the review meeting, Detective Superintendent ISAAC confirmed that the purpose of the enquiry was;-

“To scope the available evidence as a means of ascertaining whether there was a need to commence a gross negligence manslaughter investigation.”

A number of further actions were agreed at the review meeting, which included meeting with the Coroner for Swansea, Mr Philip ROGERS to provide him with an update and ascertain his views on reviewing the evidence at the original inquest in order to determine whether or not there was any concern regarding the witness testimonies.

It was also agreed that, on receipt of the final report confirming the findings of Professor BUSUTILL, the case papers would be referred to the Crown Prosecution Service Special Cases Directorate to give advice and opinion on the question of whether there were grounds to pursue a criminal investigation.

It would seem that regular review meetings were held between the Investigating Officers and the Reviewing Officer to monitor and review progress in this matter, and a policy book was commenced by Detective Chief Inspector LYNCH to formally record policy and progress in relation to the actions taken during the investigation.

In March 2006, Detective Superintendent Ken ISAAC accompanied DCI Mark LYNCH to Spain to meet with Mr GROTHIER to discuss his allegations in further detail, and apprise Mr GROTHIER of the progress and findings of the enquiries made to date.

During discussions, the report of the findings of Professor BUSUTILL was disclosed to David GROTHIER, who criticised it as being superficial and failing to take account of the views of staff at the Bristol Children’s Hospital.

During discussions, Mr GROTHIER re-iterated his view that the NHS Trust Staff who gave evidence at the Coroner’s inquest committed perjury because they denied negligence under oath with the result that the Coroner recorded a finding of death by natural causes.

He also expressed concern at the Coroner’s refusal to have the evidence given at Inquest tape recorded.

ENQUIRIES WITH THE CORONER.

On the 4th April 2006, The Investigating Officer met with Mr Philip ROGERS, the then Coroner for Swansea. Mr ROGERS was in company with Mr Richard MORGAN, the Coroner who had presided at the Inquest concerning Stephanie’s death

During discussions, the following key points emerged.

There was no professional body to manage the conduct of the Coroner or issues arising in relation to any particular inquest.
The option available to Mr GROTHIER to challenge the conduct and findings of the inquest was by way of Judicial Review.
There was no requirement to have the proceedings tape recorded and at that time it was not a practice which was adopted in Swansea.
Mr MORGAN was able to reach a verdict on the evidence presented to him at the time.
With respect to Mr GROTHIER’S supposition that staff at the NHS Trust had perjured themselves by denying under oath that they had been negligent, Mr MORGAN stated that he had no concerns with respect to the witness testimony tendered at the original inquest
Mr MORGAN explained that there would have been subjective opinion given by staff in good faith at the time albeit that, subsequent reviews by expert witnesses may be at odds with the respective opinion expressed by NHS Trust staff when giving evidence at the inquest.

During the course of the meeting, it was agreed that Mr Philip ROGERS would undertake to review all of the evidence, including that incorporated from expert witnesses provided since the original inquest, with a view to considering whether the original verdict should be questioned and new proceedings implemented.

Mr ROGERS did in fact review the evidence and, in a letter dated 15th March 2007, he outlined his findings to Detective Chief Inspector Mark LYNCH.

Mr ROGERS commenced by recognising the tragic circumstances of the event. He went on to confirm the avenues by which the Inquest could be re-opened and confirmed that he could not initiate any review in that regard.

Mr ROGERS then sought to address the findings of his review and reports as follows;-

“You have asked me to consider whether there are grounds for seeking to re-open the inquest into Stephanie’s death that was concluded by my predecessor Mr J R Morgan in 1999. In Law there is no appeal from the decision of a Coroners Inquest but it is possible to challenge the decision in two ways;-

Mr ROGERS then identifies the ways in which challenge may be made and confirms that for the first, a limitation of proceedings would present barriers to taking that route.

For the second, the consent of the Attorney General was required to refer the matter to the High Court. Mr ROGERS confirms that the applicant to the court must establish that in a case where an inquest has already been held, whether by reason of fraud, rejection of evidence, irregularity of proceedings, insufficiency of enquiry, the discovery of new facts or evidence or otherwise, it is necessary or desirable in the interests of justice that another inquest be held.

In that regard, Mr ROGERS makes the following observations;-

“I have considered the papers available from the original inquest. Unfortunately there is no verbatim transcript but I have seen copies of the Coroner’s notes at the time and also the note made by Mr. Grothier’s representative from Messrs. Challinors Lyon Clark. From the file it seems that the Coroner consulted the Solicitors in advance concerning the witnesses to be called and there is nothing to suggest that Mr. Grothier’s representatives asked for any additional witnesses to attend. There is also nothing to indicate that the Solicitors disputed any matter concerning the conduct of the Inquest whilst it was being heard or made any submissions regarding the appropriate verdict. I cannot therefore see that there is any ground to review the 1999 Inquest on the basis of “Fraud, rejection of evidence, irregularity of proceedings or insufficiency of enquiry”.

In saying this I am mindful of the numerous emails which Mr Grothier sent to the previous Coroner in which he stated that Mr. Morgan had been guilty of conspiring with the Swansea NHS Trust to pervert the course of justice, “fixing” the inquest and other potentially criminal acts. Mr Morgan appears to have responded appropriately to these allegations at the time and on the assumption that these allegations have played no part in your investigation I have treated these emails as remarks which do not need to be specifically dealt with. No evidence of any sort has been given by Mr. Grothier in support of them.”

In his response Mr ROGERS discusses his consideration of the expert medical opinion which has emerged since the Inquest in 1999, and considers whether it would affect the verdict of Death by natural causes. Mr ROGERS states;-

“I am of course aware that after Stephanie’s death Mr GROTHIER instituted proceedings against Swansea NHS Trust for damages and the papers which you have provided me with show those proceedings were settled in 2002 when the Trust admitted liability and paid damages to Mr GROTHIER. You have referred me to a number of reports which were obtained from medical experts both by Mr GROTHIER and the Trust. The reports show a variety of different opinions concerning Stephanie’s treatment. The point which I must make however is that these reports are expert opinions given after the event. There is nothing that I have seen which suggests that there were any new facts or evidence revealed as a consequence of these further enquiries. Indeed all the experts appear to have worked from the original medical notes and the statements of the doctors which were given at or preparatory to the Inquest. Moreover, I have not seen anything in the reports which casts doubt on the medical cause of death given by Dr VUJANIC or the account of how Stephanie was treated whilst in hospital. The issue upon which the experts were asked to comment was whether the actions or admissions of the doctors who treated Stephanie during her admission amounted to professional negligence. As you will be aware questions of blame and negligence are outside the remit of the Coroner’s Court. ………………………………………………….……….…………………

I am aware that some of the reports which you have shown me conclude that there was negligence in Stephanie’s case whilst other experts are of the opinion that there was none. Clearly, in the end the family were successful in securing an admission of liability from the Trust and recovered damages. However, the fact that liability may originally have been in issue and that the family subsequently prevailed in civil proceedings does not in my opinion amount to a reason for seeking to overturn the inquest. I am not aware of there being new evidence concerning the facts surrounding Stephanie’s death as opposed to different interpretations of those facts for the purpose of civil proceedings”…………………………

…………………“In my opinion based on the evidence I have seen the treatment provided by the doctors could not amount to a gross failure to provide basic medical assistance ...........”

Mr ROGERS makes further comment regarding the allegations of perjury as follows;-

“Mr Grothier has alleged perjury on the part of the Doctors at the Inquest. I am not aware of the specific act or acts of perjury alleged and as Coroner I have no power or authority to investigate any such allegations which are solely a matter of criminal law. This is something which I therefore have to leave to you and I would simply say that if an act of perjury was to be proved that could amount to sufficient reason to make application for review of the inquest under Section 13 Coroner’s Act.”

Mr ROGERS concludes his letter of response by saying:-

On the basis of the information you have given me I do not consider it is appropriate for me to apply to the Attorney general under Section 13 of the Coroner’s Act 1988 to overturn the 1999 Inquest. There is of course nothing to prevent Mr GROTHIER personally from applying to the Attorney general and if he wishes to do this I would suggest that he seeks specialist legal advice as soon as possible. Mr MORGAN appears to have invited Mr GROTHIER to take this course on several occasions.

CROWN PROSECUTION SERVICE - ADVICE

As stated, the investigating Officer has consulted with the Crown Prosecution Service Special Casework Division on the question of pursuing a criminal prosecution in relation to manslaughter by gross negligence as it relates to the care and treatment given to Stephanie by the Swansea NHS Trust.

The case was referred to Mr Simon ORME, a Senior Crown Prosecutor employed by the Crown Prosecution Service.

Mr ORME wrote to DCI LYNCH on the 8th September 2006 to confirm the CPS opinion as follows;- ........It follows that the evidence in this case does not meet the evidential test set out in the Code for Crown Prosecutors and there exists no realistic prospect of a conviction resulting from criminal proceedings alleging manslaughter brought against any clinician involved in Stephanie GROTHIER’S death.”

It is also apparent that on the 13th December 2007, Mr ORME accompanied Detective Inspector LYNCH and Superintendent ISAAC to visit Mr GROTHIER in Spain where they discussed the findings of the investigation with Mr GROTHIER, and Mr ORME explained his rationale for concluding that there was no realistic prospect of a conviction resulting from criminal proceedings alleging manslaughter brought against any clinician involved in Stephanie’s death.

FINDINGS OF THE REVIEW

A number of actions have been taken by Detective Superintendent Mark LYNCH in order to confirm whether there was any evidence upon which to base a criminal investigation into the allegations made by Mr GROTHIER. The actions taken by Detective Superintendent LYNCH appear to be comprehensive, reasonable, appropriate and proportionate.

Expert medical opinion was sought in relation to the allegation of gross negligence manslaughter and the allegation was not supported. The matter was then referred to the Crown Prosecution Service for advice and opinion and again the case for criminal investigation was not supported.

The allegation that Swansea NHS Staff have committed perjury is based upon the fact that the Trust accepted liability for the civil proceedings so, by inference, staff who gave evidence at the Inquest must have been lying in any denial of negligence.

In addressing the issue of any potential perjury, Mark LYNCH has sought the advice of the presiding Coroner, Mr Richard MORGAN. Mr MORGAN had no concerns whatsoever with the conduct of the witnesses who gave evidence during the inquest.

Detective Superintendent LYNCH has also sought the views of the current Coroner, Mr Philip ROGERS, who saw no grounds upon which to base an application to re-open the inquest.

From the findings of the Review, it is apparent that the evidence given by the medical staff during the course of the inquest is the same evidence which was presented by the NHS Trust in the preparation for the defence of the civil action.

The Civil Action was in fact settled before any hearing actually took place so we do not have a case where witnesses have given a version of events at one set of proceedings and have changed their version of events for another set of proceedings.

From the information which is available to the Reviewing Officer, it is apparent that the NHS Trust staff who are concerned in this matter, have remained consistent in their account of their actions throughout.

The Review has found that Mr FOLLIS (Solicitor acting for Mr GROTHIER) made two challenges to the consistency of the evidence given at Inquest.

The first is the point made by Mr FOLLIS during questioning of Dr KONTOS. Mr FOLLIS mentions that the notes of the examination conducted at 4.00pm by Dr SCHANZ appear between the entries of Dr Sioned EVANS who examined Stephanie at about 8.00am and the entries of Dr KONTOS who examined Stephanie at 9.15am.

Dr KONTOS was unable to give an explanation in that regard. Dr SCHANZ was asked and accepted that her entry appeared on the notes between those of Dr EVANS and Dr KONTOS.

From an examination of the notes, it is apparent that the entries made by Dr KONTOS actually appear on a different page to those made at 4.00pm by DR SCHANZ. It is also the case that the entries of Dr KONTOS appear to run chronologically and consistently with those made afterwards.

There is also no contradiction between the notes and what was said in evidence by Dr EVANS, Dr KONTOS and Dr SCHANZ during the inquest. With that in mind, the Review does not find anything overtly sinister in the chronology of the notes.

The other anomaly is the recollection of Mrs GROTHIER that Dr KONTOS told her that she had also heard abnormal sounds, described as ‘Creps’ (Crepitations), during the chest examination conducted at 9.15am. This was denied by Dr KRONTOS in her evidence given during the Inquest.

The notes of Dr KONTOS do not make reference to her hearing ‘Creps’ during her examination. However, at the time of her examination Dr KONTOS was aware that Dr Sioned EVANS had heard noises in the earlier examination, and she knew Stephanie from previous consultations and was aware of her heart condition.

Bearing in mind that one of the objectives of the examination was to consider the earlier findings of Dr Sioned EVANS and decide upon the matter of the Chest X-RAY, it may be reasonable to conclude that if Dr KONTOS had heard ‘creps’ during her examination then she would have recorded the fact.

Mrs Ann Elaine GROTHIER was not called to give verbal evidence at the inquest so could not be challenged on the question of what Dr KONTOS had said to her in that regard.

There is nothing in the notes relating to the evidence given by Dr KONTOS or any other witness to suggest that they were not being truthful in their recollection of events that day and in their account of their actions.

As stated, Mr GROTHIER’S assertion that staff lied to the Inquest in relation to Stephanie’s death is based on a presumption that if the Trust later admitted negligence in relation to the Civil Action then any denial of negligence at the Inquest is evidence of Perjury.

Mr MORGAN negates this presumption and confirms that he had no concerns with regard to the witness testimony tendered at the original inquest. He explained that there would have been subjective opinion given by staff in good faith at the time albeit that, subsequent reviews by expert witnesses may be at odds with the respective opinion expressed by NHS Trust staff when giving evidence at the inquest.

Mr ROGERS confirms that some of the reports which he had been shown concluded that there was negligence in Stephanie’s case whilst other experts were of the opinion that there was none.

However, Mr ROGERS was not aware of there being new evidence concerning the facts surrounding Stephanie’s death as opposed to different interpretations of those facts for the purpose of civil proceedings”

In deciding upon the allegation of perjury, Detective Superintendent LYNCH has relied upon the opinion of the Coroner who presided over the inquest and he has used his professional judgement to reach a conclusion that there were no grounds upon which to base a criminal investigation into the allegations that NHS Trust staff had committed perjury.

Detective Superintendent LYNCH is and was at that time, a highly qualified, nationally accredited and experienced Senior Investigating Officer. He was most certainly sufficiently professionally qualified and experienced to make that decision.

In reaching that conclusion, Detective Superintendent LYNCH would have had the support of Detective Chief Superintendent Ken ISAAC who had been acting as the reviewing officer in relation to the work being undertaken by Mr LYNCH.

The NHS staff had given their accounts at the Inquest and their accounts had not changed in relation to any subsequent information provided by the trust with regard to the civil proceedings.

Having reviewed the facts of this case, I share the view and judgement of Mark LYNCH that there were no grounds to support the allegation made by Mr GROTHIER that NHS Staff had wilfully lied during the evidence which they provided to the inquest and I agree that there were no grounds upon which to base a criminal investigation in that regard.

The decision to take no further action on the allegations of perjury was properly made and there is no evidence whatsoever that Detective Superintendent LYNCH had entered into a conspiracy with any other party to reach that decision.

TIMESCALES OF THE INVESTIGATION

The length of time between the allocation of the Investigation to Detective Inspector LYNCH in March 2003, to the conclusion of the investigation in December 2008, would appear to be inordinately excessive and certainly gave Mr GROTHIER cause for concern that things were not being progressed as quickly as they should.

However, it is clear from the documentary material available, that the task of obtaining the necessary case papers from the various parties was a time consuming action. Progress in that regard was, to a certain degree, out of the hands of the investigating officer.

It is also the case that the Case Papers were essential to the work of Professor BUSUTILL, which could not commence without them.

Once the relevant case papers were obtained, the medical expert was quite quickly appointed and the case material provided. However, once again, progress in taking forward the work of Professor BUSUTILL was out of the hands of the Investigating Officer.

It is also the case that in the time taken to conduct the enquiries undertaken by Mark LYNCH, the officer was moved several times between a number of departments and specialist roles, and was in fact, promoted on two occasions.

During the life of the enquiry, Mark LYNCH decided to retain ownership of the case and to keep it with him as he moved between jobs and roles.

I believe that the decision to do so was made with the best of intentions, however, and with the benefit of hindsight, it may have been more appropriate for Mark LYNCH to pass the enquiry to his replacement when he was moved from his role as Detective Inspector at Swansea.

Notwithstanding the length of time which it has taken to complete the enquiries undertaken by the police, nevertheless, the actions taken by Mark LYNCH to respond to the criminal allegations made by Mr GROTHIER appear reasonable and comprehensive.

He has targeted his enquiries at the key sources who are able to support or negate the allegations which Mr GROTHIER has made against Swansea NHS Trust and its staff, and the response to those enquiries has fully supported the conclusion that there is no justification in pursuing a criminal investigation into the allegations that Stephanie’s death was as a result of criminal negligence manslaughter or that staff involved in her care gave perjured evidence to the Coroner.

Nevertheless, there appears to be a lengthy delay following confirmation of the findings of the Coroner, and the Crown Prosecution Service, in 2006, up to the formal communication being provided to Mr GROTHIER in December 2008.

From the information which is available to me it is apparent that Mark LYNCH and Ken ISAAC were in regular communication with Mr GROTHIER, and they were updating him with progress both formally and informally as and when significant findings and conclusions emerged.

Copies of key correspondence and reports were provided to David GROTHIER as events unfolded and the Investigating Officer made no less than three trips to Spain to update him on progress.

On one such occasion, the CPS representative accompanied the officers to speak with Mr GROTHIER in order to explain, on a personal basis, the rational of the CPS decision.

In that regard, it has to be said that the openness and transparency of the officers in disclosing the investigative findings as they emerged actually may have worked against them in bringing this case to a more timely conclusion.

At each stage Mr GROTHIER challenged and raised further issues which the officers tried to address to his satisfaction. Unfortunately, there appears to be no answer which would have satisfied Mr GROTHIER other than a commitment from the police to conduct a criminal investigation into the allegations which he had made against the Trust and its staff.

Eventually, what had been an excellent relationship, built on a respect and trust of the officers by David GROTHIER, broke down and the officers appear to have reached an impasse where the police could take the matter no further.

The delay between the visit to Spain in 2007 and the final e-mail confirmation in December 2008 appears to have been taken up, for the main part, in Mr GROTHIER raising challenges to the findings, and the officers taking steps to seek to reassure him that they had taken all reasonable measures possible to address the issues.

Nevertheless, and overall, there does seem to be an unacceptably long timeframe between the making of the criminal allegations at the start of 2003, and the formal notification of the findings of the police enquiries in December 2008, and there may be learning issues in that regard for all officers who are involved in cases such as this.

CONCLUSIONS.

The allegation that Mark LYNCH has conspired with other parties to pervert the course of justice in relation to his failure to investigate allegations of perjury is not supported by the findings of this review.

The actions taken by Mr LYNCH have been appropriate, proportionate and reasonable. He has taken steps to examine the facts and obtain the views of experts to enable an informed response to the criminal allegations made by Mr GROTHIER.

There is no evidence of any misconduct on his part, nor any evidence to support the allegations of a criminal conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.

David JENKINS
Senior Investigative Assistant
Professional Standards Department.

South Wales Police

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Grothier

 

I write to advise that I am in receipt of your e-mail dated 3^rd April
2012, regarding the policy in relation to prosecutions for perjury and
conspiracy to commit perjury.

 

This letter confirms that your request has now been passed to our FOI
officers who will review the contents of your request and establish if a)
your request is valid under the FOI Act and b) if any further
clarification is required from you to allow us to progress further.

 

Should you wish to contact us regarding your request, please quote
reference number 255/12 on any correspondence. Should you wish to contact
us by e-mail, please do so using the mail box
[1][South Wales Police request email]. (Please do not reply directly to my own
e-mail address as this may result in a further delay to your request).

 

South Wales Police provides you the right to request a re-examination of
your case under its review procedure (copy attached). If you decide to
request such a review and having followed the Constabulary’s full process
you are still dissatisfied, then you have the right to direct your
comments to the Information Commissioner who will give it consideration.

 

Regards

 

Stephen Evans

 

Stephen Evans

Information Manager

Rheolwr Gwybodaeth

South Wales Police/Heddlu de Cymru

Tel/Ffon: 01656 761831

Ext/Est: 20394

E-mail/E-bost: [2][email address]

 

South Wales Police is the 12th most improved force in England & Wales for
overall crime reduction with over 10,000 fewer victims of crime.

Yn nalgylch Heddlu De Cymru y bu r 12fed gostyngiad mwyaf mewn troseddau
drwy Gymru a Lloegr, gyda 10,000 yn llai yn dioddef trosedd.

show quoted sections

Dear South Wales Police,

Dear Tim Jones I am in recipe of your letter dated 26.April 2012.

I had requested that you use this medium for your replies.

I do not accept your explanation. I am making a proper FOI Act request covering written information held by South Wales Police.

I now believe that you are being deliberately evasive.

Perjury remains perjury and a criminal office. You are failing both me and the public through your blatant dereliction of your sworn duty to uphold the law.

Consequentially I have no option but to request an Internal Review and this I know do.

Yours faithfully,

David Grothier

South Wales Police

2 Attachments

Dear Mr Grothier

 

Your request for information has now been considered and our response is
attached.

                          

I trust that this information answers your request. Should you have any
queries and wish to contact us by e-mail, please do so using the mail box
[1][South Wales Police request email]. (Please do not reply directly to my own
e-mail address as this may result in a delay to your request).

                              

South Wales Police provides you the right to request a re-examination of
your case under its review procedure (copy attached). If you decide to
request such a review and having followed the Forces full process you are
still dissatisfied, then you have the right to direct your comments to the
Information Commissioner who will give it consideration.

 

 

Eloise Rosser

Freedom of Information Officer

South Wales Police Headquarters

Cowbridge Road

Bridgend

CF31 3SU

 

External / Allanol: 01656 306163

 

Internal / Mewnol: 20635

 

Email: [email address]

 

Web: www.south-wales.police.uk / www.heddlu-de-cymru.police.uk

 

South Wales Police is the 12th most improved force in England & Wales for
overall crime reduction with over 10,000 fewer victims of crime.

Yn nalgylch Heddlu De Cymru y bu r 12fed gostyngiad mwyaf mewn troseddau
drwy Gymru a Lloegr, gyda 10,000 yn llai yn dioddef trosedd.

show quoted sections

David Grothier

Dear South Wales Police,

You have already informed that the decision not to prosecute in this matter was taken by D S Mark Lynch. Now you want to change your story and pass it back onto the CPS.

The conduct of South Wales Police in this matter is totally unacceptable, and in my opinion a gross insult to the general public, whom South Wales Police have sworn duty to serve, and in fact boasts upon its letter head,< Keeping South Wales Safe>.

It is inconceivable to any form of decency and civility, that serving police officers, many of them whom are also fathers, would not wish to work to ensure a greater accountability, and to improve the constantly failing standards of medical care in our NHS hospitals. People, including children, are still dying through the negligence of NHS staff, and it appears that South Wales Police, as does the GMC, seem solely interested in protecting doctors who are negligent.

This is an obscenely outrageous situation.

Consequently, as South Wales Police provides the right to request a re-examination of my case under its review procedure. I now request a re-examination.

Furthermore, I wish that South Wales Police, and indeed anyone else interested, are perfectly clear on this point: Welsh Health Legal Services acting for Swansea NHS Trust are expert at playing legal shenanigans, they have had plenty of practice given the increase in medical negligence cases being brought against Welsh NHS Trusts..

The Civil Action, which I brought against Swansea NHS Trust, was in indeed settled before any hearing actually took place, and this was subject to my serious concerns and strong protestations. However, it is a well known, and accepted fact, that once admissions are made, and any statutory compensation award paid into court. the Plaintiff’s case is deemed to be settled in the eyes of the law.

Therefore, we have the situation where witnesses have given a version of events at one set of proceedings, (The Inquest) which have not been properly examined and challenged by highly skilled advocates before a trial judge.

This, I was correctly informed by my legal team, such being the weakness of Swansea NHS Trust’s defence, is exactly what Swansea NHS Trust did not want. I know, in just one example, that KONTOS, was blatantly lying at the inquest! The conflicting version of event from various doctors, clearly support my contention. I am confident too, that once placed on the witness stand, my barrister would have found little difficulty in getting at the truth from KONTOS, and others.

Also, it has to be considered that Swansea NHS Trust had bitterly denied any form of negligence for almost five and half years!…. Why then did they capitulate so easily at the last minute, and move into “damage control mode” through avoiding a public hearing?

If there was no subterfuge, and their case was as good as they presented at the inquest, then surely it would have been in the long suffering tax payers best interest to settle matters once and for all time before a trial judge, would it not?

A trial judge would not have been parochially susceptible to local iniquitous influences as was Morgan, the then Swansea Coroner!
It is undoubted, as far as I am concerned, that there has been a conspiracy to commit perjury, and to Pervert the Course of Justice, and that now South Wales Police are partaking and perpetuating is such conspiracy. However, let us follow the prescribe procedures through to the conclusion before considering other avenues of investigation.

People entering hospitals are usually anxious, concerned, and extremely vulnerable, they have a right to expect a reasonable cleanliness and competence, from qualified, and reasonably competence members of the medical profession.

Justice will be served, openly and honestly…. if just for the defenseless children and other vulnerable patients..

Yours faithfully,

David Grothier

David Grothier left an annotation ()

For the attention of South Wales Police Force, Supt Tim Jones.

Sir I thought it appropriate, and in the public's best interests, if I were to respectfully remind you of the following:

Police officers in the UK 'attest' (swear their oath of office) under section 29 of the Police Act 1996, which reads -

I (FOR EXAMPLE), Tim Jones... of South Wales Police Force.. do solemnly and sincerely declare and affirm that I will well and truly serve the Queen in the office of constable, with fairness, integrity, diligence and impartiality, upholding fundamental human rights and according equal respect to all people; and that I will, to the best of my power, cause the peace to be kept and preserved and prevent all offences against people and property; and that while I continue to hold the said office I will to the best of my skill and knowledge discharge all the duties thereof faithfully according to law'.

The wording comes from Schedule 4 of the 1996 Act, as inserted by section 83 of the Police Reform Act 2002.

South Wales Police

2 Attachments

Dear Mr Grothier

 

Your request for an Internal Review of our response to your Freedom of
Information Request Ref 255/12 has now been considered and our response is
attached.

                          

Should you have any queries and wish to contact us by e-mail, please do so
using the mail box [1][South Wales Police request email]. (Please do not reply
directly to my own e-mail address as this may result in a delay to your
request).

                              

South Wales Police provides you the right to request a re-examination of
your case under its review procedure (copy attached). If you decide to
request such a review and having followed the Forces full process you are
still dissatisfied, then you have the right to direct your comments to the
Information Commissioner who will give it consideration.

 

Regards

 

Stephen Evans

Information Manager

Rheolwr Gwybodaeth

South Wales Police/Heddlu de Cymru

Tel/Ffon: 01656 761831

Ext/Est: 20394

E-mail/E-bost: [2][email address]

 

Did you know that crime in South Wales is at its lowest since 1983? The
latest Home Office figures show there were 6,354 fewer victims of crime in
2011 compared with 2010

Wyddech chi fod lefelau troseddu yn ne Cymru ar eu hisaf er 1983?  Dengys
ffigurau diweddaraf y Swyddfa Gartref y bu 6,354 yn llai o ddioddefwyr
troseddu yn 2011 nag yn 2010

show quoted sections

Dear South Wales Police,

I would want this case re-examined as I am far from satisfied.

No matter how evasive South Wales Police wishes to be...Perjury remains Perjury, and a criminal offence.

Yours faithfully,

David Grothier