Tomlinson-case doctor struck off for failings

Dr Freddy Patel was finally banned from practising as a doctor despite being investigated numerous times and suspended on two previous occasions by medical watchdogs.

Dr Patel was found guilty of misconduct but was not at the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS), sitting in Manchester.

Dr Patel, who qualified at the University of Zambia in 1974 and has practised as a pathologist for 35 years, was excused attendance but listened in on the hearing by conference call from London.

The medic’s actions were found to be misleading, dishonest and liable to bring his profession into disrepute over parts of his handling of the post-mortem examination of Ian Tomlinson.

The Rev Robert Lloyd-Richards, chairman of the MPTS fitness to practise panel, told Patel that he had an “unwarranted confidence” in his own ability, “a deep-seated attitudinal problem” and “lacked insight”.

Mr Tomlinson, 47, died on April 1 2009 after he became caught up in the G20 riots in the City of London as he tried to get home and was forcibly pushed over by Pc Simon Harwood.

Patel carried out the post-mortem on Mr Tomlinson and concluded that he died from a heart attack, but questions were raised when an American tourist came forward with a video recording of him being hit.

Further medical reports suggested that Mr Tomlinson died from an injury to his liver that caused internal bleeding and then cardiac arrest.

At the inquest into Mr Tomlinson’s death, Dr Patel’s claim that he died of a heart attack was discredited by the jury in favour of the string of experts who said he died of internal bleeding.

Patel’s first post-mortem also made it all but impossible to conclude with any certainty how Mr Tomlinson came to die.

His two reports into his examination of Mr Tomlinson’s body were found to be inadequate.

Dr Patel admitted he did not include in his first report that he mentioned to police during the examination that he found injuries consistent with a baton strike.

Other botched cases include those of a four-week-old baby, a five-year-old girl and an elderly woman.

Adrian Hopkins QC, representing Dr Patel, claimed it was in the public interest to allow such an experienced pathologist to carry on providing his expertise.

He said Dr Patel, who was already suspended, had been unable to work for the past two years and had suffered “considerable financial hardship”. He asked for Dr Patel to be allowed to do limited, supervised work so he could at least earn a living.

But Mr Lloyd-Richards told Dr Patel: “Your rigid mind-set, illustrated by your inability to reflect on the case of Mr Tomlinson and your unwarranted confidence in your own abilities, does not convince this panel that it would be appropriate to impose conditions, even with the most stringent supervision, on your registration.

“The panel considers that you have a deep-seated attitudinal problem.

“You have twice been suspended for your failings in relation to post-mortem examinations you have carried out.”