Father of girl who died in hospital fails in legal challenge

The father of a nine-year-old girl who died from hyponatraemia has failed in his attempt to challenge a decision not to refer a senior medic to a fitness to practise tribunal.

A judge at the High Court in Belfast dismissed the application for a judicial review mounted by Alan Roberts.

It was in connection with disputed allegations about Prof Ian Young.

A public inquiry investigating the deaths of Claire Roberts and four other children from hyponatraemia - which is linked to a shortage of sodium in the blood - found an overdose of fluids contributed to her death at the Royal Belfast Hospital for Sick Children in 1996.

The inquiry had found Prof Young did not inform Claire's parents - Alan and Jennifer Roberts - about failings in her care and gave "misleading" evidence to the original inquest into her death.

In 2022, paediatric consultant Dr Heather Steen was removed from the medical register for dishonestly trying to conceal the circumstances of Claire's death.

In 2023, the General Medical Council (GMC) confirmed Prof Ian Young, who once served as Northern Ireland's chief scientific adviser, would face no action following the public inquiry.

Prof Young was not involved in the treatment of any of the children whose deaths were examined.

He had been asked by the Royal Group of Hospitals in 2004 to provide an independent assessment on whether hyponatraemia 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 Prof 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 Prof Young believed when he reviewed Claire's notes and records in 2004 that there had been clinical mismanagement because treating doctors failed to carry out a repeated blood test back in October 1996.

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.

Counsel representing Prof Young insisted there was no evidence of dishonesty.

The court was told he had been the first person to advise Claire's parents that hyponatraemia may have played a part in her death and referred her case to the coroner, the court was told.

Those actions demonstrated his honesty and that he was not part of any "cover up", his barrister said.

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 the GMC was justified in considering Prof Young's last statement to the inquiry, his response statement to the GMC 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."

Finding that the GMC was entitled to come to different conclusions based on its role and available evidence, Madam Justice McBride identified no breach of the relevant rules or the legal test for dishonesty.

She said she was also satisfied that once the case examiners concluded Prof Young "subjectively did not believe in 2004 that there was mismanagement in Claire's case due to a failure to carry out repeat blood tests, they did not consider it necessary to expressly state that his conduct would not objectively be considered dishonest by the standards of ordinary decent people".