Parents of Claire Roberts who died from hyponatremia: We haven’t got the justice we require, they say after Belfast High Court hearing
The father of a nine-year-old girl who died from hyponatremia says he has not got the justice he requires, after the High Court rejected his attempt to refer a senior medic to a fitness to practise tribunal.
A judge today dismissed the application for judicial review mounted by Alan Roberts in connection with disputed allegations about Professor Ian Young.
Mr Roberts' daughter Claire was one of five children whose deaths at hospitals in Northern Ireland were the focus of a public inquiry.
It ultimately ruled four of the deaths were avoidable and identified a cover-up over what happened to Claire.
The probe into cases of hyponatremia, a condition linked to shortage of sodium in the blood which can lead to fatal brain swelling, was the longest running inquiry of its kind in British history.
It found that Claire died in October 1996 from an overdose of fluids and medication due to negligent care at the Royal Belfast Hospital for Sick Children.
Speaking after the hearing yesterday, Mr Roberts said: “We're disappointed in today's ruling by the judge. We disagree with the ruling. We do not think the ruling has given us the justice that we require.”
In November 2022 paediatrics consultant Dr Heather Steen was struck off the medical register for dishonestly trying to conceal the circumstances of the schoolgirl’s death.
But months later the General Medical Council (GMC) confirmed that Professor Ian Young, who served as Northern Ireland’s chief scientific advisor, would face no action following the public inquiry.
Prof Young was not involved in the treatment of any of the children. However he had been asked by the Royal Group of Hospitals in 2004 to provide an independent assessment on whether hyponatremia played a part in Claire’s death.
However, the inquiry concluded that he “shifted” from his initial independent advisory role to one of protecting the hospital and its doctors.
He referred himself to the GMC after those findings were published in January 2018.
Claire’s parents sought to judicially review the regulatory body for deciding the allegations against Professor Young should not go before a Medical Practitioners Tribunal.
Lawyers for Mr Roberts claimed the determination reached in February 2023 was irrational, failed to provide adequate reasons and involved apparent bias.
He wanted the GMC’s decision quashed and an order made for it to be reconsidered.
The court heard the case involved allegations that Professor Young believed when he reviewed Claire’s notes and records in 2004 that there had been clinical mismanagement.
It was contended that he dishonestly failed to disclose this or gave misleading information at a meeting with her parents, in his contribution to a letter sent to them, and in evidence to the inquest.
Mr Roberts' legal team challenged the GMC decisions, claiming they were irrational and failed to adjudicate on specific allegations when the public inquiry had made adverse findings.
Ruling on the application for leave to seek a judicial review against the GMC, Madam Justice McBride rejected all grounds of challenge.
She held that that authority was justified in considering Professor Young’s last statement to the inquiry, his response statement to the council, and other evidence which demonstrated his honesty.
“I am satisfied the case examiners showed rigour and procedural fairness in their decision making,” the judge said.
“I consider it was a rational choice to decide the realistic prospects test was not met based on their evaluation of the strength of the case applying their expertise and knowledge of how the case would fare at the tribunal.”