Unsafe legal logic

Please visit our new CrowdJustice page, and donate and share – to try to have these issues addressed properly by the courts.

Since blowing the whistle at Alder Hey hospital (AH), one of the questions I’m often asked is “how do NHS managers get away with false denials about child deaths?”

At the moment, NHS managers can protect themselves by falsely denying the most serious concerns. This also discredits the doctors who report them. This managerial misconduct persists because the local Employment Tribunal (ET) tolerates it – and the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) backs up the ET. Doctors are denied protection.

To acheive this, the EAT and ET appear to have re-invented Schrodinger’s superposition,  where someone can be both dead (“granular” truth) and not dead (“macro” truth).

See if you can unpick the lawyers’ logic below:

1. I reported X (where X = avoidable deaths and the victimisation of a fellow whistleblower).
2. Alder Hey (AH) tell Parliament et al. that X all investigated and found to be “completely without foundation” and proven “absolutely untrue”.
3. I complained to ET that 2 is false claim about 1.
4. AH’s legal defence claims 2 is “without falsehood”.
5. AH’s oral evidence, the Royal College of Surgeons’ (RCS) report and the death of Caitlyn Parry all show AH’s claims at 2 and 4 are false (and AH knew it).
6. ET admits 1 not baseless and that 2 clearly an over-statement (i.e. untrue, otherwise, the prefix “over-“ is redundant).
7. But ET finds for AH without addressing fact that 4 is false, given 1 has foundation. The ET defends AH as just trying to protect its reputation.
8. When challenged, the EAT President acknowledges 1 has “truth and foundation”.
9. The EAT President finds for AH by claiming 1 is true at the “granular” level (i.e. of child deaths), while claiming 2 can simultaneously be true at a “macro” level.
10. The EAT President fails to explain how 4 (AH’s defence) can be anything other than false, given 1 has “truth and foundation”.

Faulty logic shields NHS managers from accountability for the most serious clinical failures. Please support my legal challenge to this unsafe logic here.

Very best wishes

Dr Ed Jesudason