FOR JOMO 1972
Consultation for a neonatal baby of 3mo. on 01.01.01 in London. Baby was undernourished and treatment given with advised for fluid, feeding and flight. But mother fly back to Hamburg following day against the advice. Baby was admitted in Hamburg hospital on 03.01.01 in exhaustion and undernourished state but baby was fully recovered with follow-up treratment by 08.01.01 Mother's falls allegations from Hamburg on 16.01.01 to the Health Authority, Regulatory Body, MP and others in London. R.B. took the case seriously & decided for full investigation. Appellant unable to contact in Hamburg due to EU rulings and manage to contact via Int. So. Service in London and German Embassy in London and house visit was arranged on 13.03.01 by the local paediatric so. worker due to suspect of postnatal depression of mother and children safety. In reality, there was no house visit with a nurse and full report to be made in German Core Assessment Form just like in London. There was only telephone conversation and agreed on letter and paper exchange in between them. This was confirmed by social worker's letter of 14.03.01; it was suppressed - paper nondisclosure. RB's took sworn statement from the mother on 21.05.01 contains 4 counts of inconsistencies; misleading and falls admissions could not detected by the sole investigator and the case assessor of the hearing. Administrator failed to detect all valuable informations. RB's Counsel wrote a letter to the consultant paediatrician on 19.04.02 asking for sign of 'prepared statement' and was signed on 29.04.02 - this letter also suppressed. Social worker's letter of 26.03.02 contains fraudulent unofficial reporting on rb's paper - this one also suppressed. Again under the influence social worker signed her fake and unofficial statement on 06.05.02 created on rb's paper. It was also suppressed including to cover up the letter of 14.03.02 Later RB's Counsel invited Consultant to attend the hearing to give evidence on 21.06.02 which was returned with negation on 11.07.02 - this 2 evidence also suppressed. Still, letter from mother to consultant, full official report of the case investigation and case assessors reports are upheld by the RB's Counsel.
According to official rule 'Official investigation of this isolated case must have been completed within 6 months'; but prosecutor withold suppressed informations more than 2 years to complete their maladministration.
May 1-12, 2003: Regulator's panel of 5 conducted their illegal hearing and accused appellant for serious professional misconduct and erased his name from the Register for full 5 years without consideration for review. Eraser should not be more than 3 years and open to consideration for review in all cases. It is unlawful and associated with higher impact decision at each stage. RB undermined and violated own rules against the ethic.
Appellant performed his systamatic lawful altruistic duties with advice, observation, action and care in relation to Child Safety - the how appellant committed serious professional misconduct? Where is factual / conclusive evidence? There were medico-legal issues; but were snuffs out and corrupted by the prosecution, no matter how convincing the facts might be. Panel had used 'informed to the Embassy as a convenient justification to accuse appellant of serious professional misconduct which is not fair, not transparent and no evidence to support beyond any doubt.[How to raise the concern of a neonatal baby's life threatening situation and whom?]. All valuable informations were deliberately suppressed by the investigator during their investigations and 5 members of the panel including the case assessor were actively involved for their unlawful determination of serious micarriage of justice. Factually, Regulator do not have a scrap of evidence to Charged the Appellant.
May 12, 2003: Sanction and determination were imposed entirely based on dodgy investigations including paper non-discloser, contempt of the hearing (court), treason, perjury, perverting the court of justice, serious miscarriage of justice by the Regulator. Investigator's findings are unreliable and unenforceable because it acted beyond it's power - ultra vires.
October 2003: Subsequent Appeal was dismissed due to suppression of essential documents. Judge does not know the facts of RB's deliberate committed serious misconduct.
17.01.04: Article "Casualties of Casualty" published in FINANCIAL TIMES Magazine. Complainant gave her another statement but with 'some truth' which is very helpful for the Appellant.
25.04.12: Lord Justice Leveson said "It was important not to jump to conclusions about the evidence until all sides had been heard". It is basic principle in British Justice that it should be open and transparent. People appearing before the court must have the right to know allegations made against and supported with evidence. Charges against Appellant are diabolical lies and did not have legal basis.
Appellant's Child Care Case, Regulator has ignored procedural improprieties and adversely affected professional life and livelihood.
You may ask every related queries of this case.