GENERAL MEDICAL COUNCIL
FITNESS TO PRACTISE PANEL (MISCONDUCT)
On:
Tuesday 17 June 2008
Held at:
St James’s Buildings
79 Oxford Street
Manchester M1 6FQ
Case of:
RAJENDRA DHWARKA PERSAUD MB BS 1986 London
Registration No: 3117660
(Day Two)
Panel Members:
Dr A Morgan (Chairman)
Mrs A Granne
Miss K Heenan
Dr A Vaidya
Mrs S Breach (Legal Assessor)
------
MR R FRANCIS QC, instructed by RadcliffesLeBrasseur, Solicitors, appeared on behalf of the doctor, who was present.
MR J DONNE QC, instructed by GMC Legal, appeared on behalf of the General Medical Council.
------
Transcript of the shorthand notes of
Transcribe UK Verbatim Reporting Services Ltd
Tel No: 01889 270708
------
INDEX
Page
FITNESS TO PRACTISE
PRELIMINARY MATTERS 1
BENTALL, Richard, affirmed
Examined by MR DONNE 2
Cross-examined by MR FRANCIS 10
Re-examined by MR DONNE 17
Questioned by THE PANEL 19
Further re-examined by MR DONNE 24
Further cross-examined by MR FRANCIS 26
PERSAUD, Rajendra Dhwarka, affirmed
Examined by MR DONNE 30
------
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
THE CHAIRMAN: Good morning everyone. Since we were hear yesterday, the Panel has had an opportunity to read through the bundle of papers and this morning it has received some additional pages - I just mention that for the record - 7A and 7B. They ere actually numbered 8A and 8B from the copies we were given but we think they should be 7A and 7B and they are references that relate to what were called footnotes in the relevant chapter of Dr Persaud’s book. We have had 55A which, amongst other things, explains the coloured highlighting in the BMJ article, and page 73, which is a clear copy of one that was very hard to read.
The only other point that we have in relation to the paperwork is to ask whether, Mr Donne, there is an original copy of The Independent article. What we have at the moment is page 101, I think, and that is an e-mail containing what is supposed to be the text of the article, but I do not think we have got anywhere in our bundle the actual original article which I understand was printed in The Independent newspaper.
MR DONNE: Sir, that is correct and, in fact, we never have had it. Attempts have been made to obtain it from The Independent and those have proved unsuccessful, so what you have, apart from that which starts at page 101, is the attachment to Professor Kent’s letter at tab 7, where his comparative analysis has been drawn from the original Independent article. As I say, we have tried to get it from The Independent but it proved impossible.
Whilst on this topic, might I say, and it is by way of an apology, I in fact had not been supplied with these attachments to the letter from the solicitors until yesterday. I had not had a chance to read them before I opened the case and if I had seen it I would not have opened this passage relating to Professor Kent in the way I did, where I made reference to an unfortunate coincidence in a sub-editing error. Having looked at this draft article from Dr Persaud to The Independent, starting at page 102, and having compared it with what lies behind tab 7, it is clear that on page 102 the centre two paragraphs do bear an attribution, and a clear attribution, to Professor Kent. However, the GMC’s point still remains in respect of the last paragraph-and-a-half on page 101, which are Professor Kent’s work and clearly are not attributed. The remaining sentence at the top of page 102 and the second and third paragraphs on page 102 starting, “Psychiatrists took on the classic Western characteristics …” and ending “… replaced by Scientology”, those are Professor Kent’s words. The last paragraph on this page, 102, starting, “Many psychiatric patients …” and ending “… begin to avoid and fear treatment”, those again are Professor Kent’s words.
It will be a question for the Panel to decide whether the attribution in the centre of the page is a sufficient attribution for the remainder of the article. We would contend not but at least now the Panel has the proper factual position. I apologise for my error in opening yesterday and I apologise for the fact that we have never been able to locate the original Independent article.
THE CHAIRMAN: I find it a little strange because presumably there must be copies of original newspapers around. I do not press the point too much but it does make it difficult for the Panel to see what was actually referred to.
MR FRANCIS: Could I just explain my understanding, and this may develop of course. It is possible to look up The Independent archive on line, on the web. The difficulty is that they have corrected that article to take account of Dr Persaud’s original draft, so that does not help us in relation to what was originally printed in hard copy and we do not, as far as I know, have the original hard copy otherwise we would produce it to you but I think everything is done electronically these days and if it gets amended then there is a problem. I imagine somewhere in the cellars of The Independent, if they have such a thing, they would have it.
MR DONNE: I am grateful for that. There is one other matter I want to raise as a preliminary issue, and I am grateful to your Legal Assessor for having pointed it out and I have discussed it with Mr Francis. The agenda that you have differs very slightly from the original draft charges that I had prepared, and paragraph 11 has been inserted subsequent to my draft. What then has happened is that in paragraph 12 the sentence starting, “Your actions are described at 3, 8 and 11 above …” is incorrect. It should actually be 3, 8 and 10 above, which are the three paragraphs alleging plagiarism. Paragraph 11 is really just an explanatory paragraph. I have discussed that with Mr Francis and I do not believe it causes any difficulty or embarrassment.
MR FRANCIS: None at all.
THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. In that case, since we have the power to amend the list of allegations at any stage we will amend 12 to read:
“Your actions as described at 3, 8 and 10 above were:
a. inappropriate,
b. misleading,
c. dishonest,
d. liable to bring the profession into disrepute.”
Can I just confirm with Mr Francis that the admission to 12(a) and 12(b) still stands?
MR FRANCIS: Yes sir.
THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. I think that takes us back to you, Mr Donne, and you were going to present a witness to us?
MR DONNE: Yes it does, sir, thank you, and the witness is here. It is Professor Richard Bentall. Sir, for the Panel’s cross-reference, the comparative passages behind tab 1 that Professor Bentall deals with start at your page 24 and his correspondence, of course, is behind tab 2.
RICHARD BENTALL, affirmed
Examined by MR DONNE
Q First of all, Professor, it is Professor Richard Bentall. Is that right?
A That is correct, yes.
Q You are currently Professor of Clinical Psychology at the School of Psychology at the University of Bangor?
A That is correct.
Q Formerly Professor of Experimental Clinical Psychological at the University of Manchester in this City?
A Yes, that is correct.
Q In the course of your professional duties do you research into the treatment of severe mental illness and teach undergraduate and postgraduate students?
A I do, yes.
Q Have you had, in the past, contact with Dr Persaud?
A I have on a small number of occasions, yes.
Q Did he contact you in or about 2003 in relation to a paper that you had co-authored with Tom O’Reilly, post-graduate student, and Professor Robin Dunbar who was then at the University of Liverpool but now at Oxford University?
A Yes, that is correct. I do not know the exact date. I have tried very hard to find the original e-mail. I suspect I said in the witness statement 2003-2004, it might actually have been earlier than that. I suspect it was earlier than that.
Q About 2003, I think the book was published in 2003.
A Yes, it must have been before then.
Q What was he asking you when he contacted you?
A He asked permission to quote from the paper with O’Reilly and Dunbar. I was a bit surprised because it wasn’t one of my greatest papers.
Q The title of the paper was?
A “Schizotypy and creativity: An evolutionary connection”.
MR FRANCIS: Can I just ask whether Dr Bentall is reading from his statement?
THE CHAIRMAN: Do you have your statement in front of you?
A Yes I do.
MR DONNE: I do not think it is a problem so far, but would you put it to one side? It is there if at any stage it is necessary for us to ask leave for you to refer to it.
A Okay. I have written a lot of papers so remembering the title of them is a problem.
MR FRANCIS: I was not seeking to make a point in relation to that particular paper.
MR DONNE: Did Dr Persaud introduce himself?
A I remember this clearly. I think he introduced himself as a consultant psychiatrist at Maudsley Hospital, I think it said. The reason why I remember it was because, of course, I was aware of his media appearances and I jokingly, in my reply, said something like, “Yes, I know who you are because my mother watches day-time television”. I was trying to be humorous.
Q Apart from him introducing himself as a consultant psychiatrist at the Maudsley, did he indicate that he had any academic appointment?
A I honestly cannot remember.
Q Did he say what he wanted to quote from your paper, or why, or in what context?
A No, he didn’t. He just simply asked to quote from the paper and, as I say, I was surprised because it did not seem to be a particularly quotable paper. It was a sort of minor piece of work.
Q What was your response?
A To agree. I mean, I would always agree if somebody asked permission to quote a paper.
Q Bearing in mind that Dr Persaud had introduced himself as a consultant psychiatrist and you knew of him from his appearances in the media, when you grant permission for your work to be quoted, what do you understand that involves when the work appears in the article by another author?
A I think it is very clear that I think anybody who has had an academic training would understand that quotation means that a passage appears in quotation marks and is properly attributed and there are standard ways of doing that in the academic literature, so I expect if for some reason he wanted to take a passage from my work that it would appear probably indented with quotation marks around it and it would have my name and the paper would be listed in the reference section.
Q After that contact by e-mail did you, in fact, meet Dr Persaud in person?
A Yes, I ran into him at the Edinburgh Book Festival in 2003. He was appearing there, and I was also giving a talk there and we had a pleasant conversation. They have a sort of tent there for people who are about to give talks.
Q After that encounter were you invited by Dr Persaud to take part in his radio programme on BBC Radio 4, All in the Mind?
A Yes, I was. I was invited to debate some of the ideas in my book, Madness explained: Psychosis and human nature, which is published by Penguin. I was very grateful for the opportunity. He invited a couple of other guests, Peter McKenna, who is a Professor of Psychiatry, and a man called Peter Chadwick, who is a psychologist who had suffered from mental illness and we had a debate on the programme, but I was very impressed by the way that Dr Persaud conducted the debate. I thought he did a very, very good job in conducting this interview with three people at the same time.
Q I think that programme was in August 2003 and I think the Edinburgh Book Festival was shortly before that?
A That is about right. I remember it was some time in the summer.
Q Following both the Festival and the programme did you receive a copy of Dr Persaud’s book, From the Edge of the Couch?
A He sent me a copy, yes.
Q Did he send it with any request?
A Yes. Actually I should say I am not quite clear whether it came directly from him or from somebody working for the publishers, but the book arrived with a request that I submit it, that I propose it for the British Psychological Book Award for that year, which was a slightly embarrassing situation to be in because my book had also been nominated by somebody else for the award, so I was not quite sure what to do really.
Q I am not sure it matters, but who won?
A I won.
Q Really! Did time pass until you were contacted by a journalist from The Sunday Times in early 2006?
A Yes, I was contacted by a journalist called Brian Deer who worked for The Sunday Times. I cannot remember the exact date but it is in my witness statement. He rang me up and he said something like ---
Q Just pause for a moment. I am not going to ask you about direct speech. Perhaps I can lead on this fairly briefly. I think he told you that in Dr Persaud’s book there appeared to be passages from your work and the work of others?
A Yes. He asked me to look at two passages which he said he would e-mail to me. He said he did not want to discuss them until I had had a look at them and he sent me the passages, and I think I looked at them. I had no idea what he was intending but basically one was a section from my paper with Dunbar and O’Reilly, and the other was a section from Dr Persaud’s book From the Edge of the Couch which up to that point I had not read even though I had a copy. It was just sat on my shelf.