Hull College Instructing Hospitals NHS Belief -v- Natasha Colley: Contempt of Courtroom | Medical Negligence and Private Harm Weblog

My weblog on the choice of Ritchie J within the case of Cojanu thought-about the method taken by the Courtroom when a Defendant advances a defence of elementary dishonesty. This weblog summarises the place when a Defendant submits an software to commit a Claimant’s Litigation Buddy for contempt of Courtroom for false statements made in a doc verified by an announcement of fact.

Megan Colley (the Claimant in a medical negligence declare assisted by her Mom and Litigation Buddy, Natasha Colley) was born with extreme acetabular dysplasia, a dysfunction of the hip joints. She alleged that with applicable therapy she would have had regular hip perform and the necessity for surgical joint reconstruction would have been delayed to age 50 or 60 with good mobility preserved till her 80s.

Throughout the course of the medical negligence case, the Defendant disclosed the report of its professional orthopaedic surgeon. The professional expressed some doubt in regards to the Claimant’s signs which had been “not easily explained on an anatomical basis”. The Defendant investigated Megan’s social media postings and fashioned the view that they didn't help the impression given in Megan’s proof. The Defendant obtained covert surveillance proof which, with the social media materials, was disclosed in September 2018. The Defendant amended its case to allege elementary dishonesty within the presentation of Megan’s declare the place a deceptive impression of Megan’s useful capability and an exaggeration of her incapacity had been given.

Topic to the elemental dishonesty defence, the Defendant admitted legal responsibility for damages of roughly £65,500. The medical negligence declare was listed for trial in October 2018. The trial was adjourned as a result of an professional was unavailable and relisted to begin on 5 March 2020.

In the meantime, in August 2019 Megan’s declare was amended and valued at £5.4 million (decreased from an preliminary valuation of £7.3 million). Nonetheless, eight working days earlier than trial, a Discover of Discontinuance was served on Megan’s behalf. No rationalization was offered, save that this step had been taken in opposition to authorized recommendation. As Megan was in receipt of authorized help, the discontinuance prevented the difficulty of elementary dishonesty from being decided by the Courtroom. 

As an alternative, the Defendant pursued committal proceedings in opposition to Mrs Colley and asserted that the essence of the alleged false assertion was to magnify Megan’s incapacity and immobility arising from her hip dysplasia. The Defendant claimed the surveillance video proof confirmed that Megan had “grossly normal” mobility when it comes to strolling, utilizing stairs, and accessing public transport. Statements from lecturers at Megan’s college and school indicated that they had been unaware of any particular preparations for Megan.

Mrs Colley stood by her statements. She claimed that Megan achieved the mobility seen within the video proof by elevated use of painkillers and that she had dangerous days in addition to good days. 

The applying to commit Mrs Colley for contempt of Courtroom on grounds of creating knowingly false statements was heard by Mr Justice Bourne.  Upon listening to reside proof from numerous witnesses (together with Megan’s college and school lecturers), Bourne J concluded “When all the evidence in the clinical negligence claim is considered, it is absolutely clear that Megan, by herself and with the help of Mrs Colley significantly exaggerated the levels of disability which she was experiencing during the lifetime of the litigation.”

This exaggeration consisted of statements that Megan “attends college in her wheelchair, has a full-time teaching assistant who pushes the wheelchair” and “is currently reliant upon the use of a wheelchair when out of the house”. Bourne J held these statements to be false and “That Mrs Colley knew that they were false when she made them. I am sure that they were knowingly made with a view to increasing the value of Megan’s clinical negligence claim and, to the knowledge of Mrs Colley, they thereby interfered with or if persisted in would have interfered with the course of justice in a material respect”. 

Mrs Colley was discovered responsible of contempt of Courtroom by knowingly making false statements supported by an announcement of fact.

Upon contemplating the suitable penalty Bourne J had in thoughts the steering of Moses LJ in South Wales Hearth and Rescue Service -v- Smith [2021].  That steering included the next warning: “The public and advisors must be aware that, however easy it is to make false claims, either in relation to liability or in relation to compensation, if found out the consequences for those tempted to do so will be disastrous. They are almost inevitably in the future going to lead to sentences of imprisonment, which will have the knock-on effect that the lives of those tempted to behave in that way, of both themselves and their families are likely to be ruined.”

With this in thoughts Bourne J recognized 4 questions he was required to reply: (1) whether or not the contempt is critical {that a} superb alone can't be justified, having relating to to hurt and culpability; (2) whether or not a jail sentence is unavoidable; (3) what's the shortest time period commensurate with the seriousness of the contempt; and (4) if there may be to be a jail sentence, whether or not it may be suspended.

In answering these questions Bourne J held:

• In respect of questions (1) and (2), the Courts have repeatedly stated that deception of this sort ought to usually result in a jail sentence. This case was critical and sustained and doubtlessly concerned substantial sums. He famous “the deception gave material support to a potential increase in the claim’s value which would have been well into six figures”. Mrs Colley resisted the contempt software and due to this fact admitted no deception and made no apology. A superb alone couldn't be justified and a custodial sentence was inevitable.
• As for query (3), the shortest potential sentence can be a sentence of 6 months and Mrs Colley can be entitled to be launched after serving half of that time period. The choose famous “A term of that length would be necessary, in my judgment, to mark the seriousness of an attempt of this kind and of its magnitude to deceive the Court.”
• Lastly, query (4), the non-public circumstances of Mrs Colley had been thought-about by Bourne J. He concluded his Judgment stating “Mrs Colley of course made a disastrous decision to try to help Megan by exaggerating her claim. The background does not excuse that tragic mistake but it helps me to understand it. It also seems to be inevitable that custody would have a significant harmful impact on all of the family and especially her son. Meanwhile, I accept that these proceedings, over a long period, have already had a severe impact on Mrs Colley. The lack of any admissions is profoundly regrettable, and places her at real risk of an immediate prison term, but there is some reason to believe that she will have learned her lesson, in other words, a real prospect of rehabilitation.”

Bourne J sentenced Mrs Colley to imprisonment for six months, suspended for two years provided that no different contempt of Courtroom is dedicated throughout that point. In passing this sentence he said “I hope Mrs Colley understands the exceptional nature of this decision to suspend.”

Apply Factors

This case is an effective instance of how critical the Courtroom takes allegations that events to litigation knowingly make false statements in a doc verified by an announcement of fact. Defendants are attuned to potential exaggeration of claims and it's clear on this case the Defendant’s professional was at a loss to reconcile the anatomical nature of the Claimant’s harm and the outline of her stage of mobility.

This Judgment is a reminder to these concerned in medical negligence and private harm litigation of the significance to confirm a witness’s account.  An in depth overview of disclosure (together with social media content material and third social gathering disclosure) must be taken all through the lifetime of the case.

Moreover, warnings must be given to purchasers, Litigation Buddies and witnesses of the implications of offering false statements in a doc verified by an announcement of fact. Colley will not be a one off instance; that is a part of a rising physique of case regulation coping with elementary dishonesty and it'll actually not be the final phrase the Courtroom can have on this topic.

FURTHER INFORMATION

If you need any additional info or recommendation in regards to the subject mentioned on this weblog, please contact Richard Lodge or our Medical Negligence and Private Harm group.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Richard Lodge is a Accomplice within the Medical Negligence and Private Harm follow and has been recognised inside the discipline of medical/medical negligence inside the Chambers UK and Authorized 500 directories.  He's an individually ranked lawyer for medical negligence inside Chambers UK, A Shopper’s Information to the UK Authorized Occupation.