News

In R (on behalf of Patricia Howard) v secretary of state for the health department (8 October 2001), Ms Howard sought permission to apply for judicial review of the health secretary's refusal to hold the "Ayling Inquiry" in public, and to exclude the press.

The case has implications for inquiries into social services cases.

Dr Ayling was a GP in the Folkestone area who, over a period of many years, had complaints made against him by female patients that he had insisted on unnecessary intimate examinations. In December 2000 he was convicted of 13 counts of indecent assault and is serving a four-year prison sentence. The General Medical Council described his behaviour as "wicked".

The department of health announced an inquiry in private (with the publication of a report at the end of the inquiry) into whether changes to procedures needed to be made in the complaints process as a result of the case. The inquiry was tasked with documenting a chronology of the complaints against Dr Ayling.

Ms Howard and many other women who alleged they were victims of Dr Ayling wanted the inquiry to be held in public and for the press to have access, and that the refusal to allow this was a breach of their rights under article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights to "receive and impart information". Ms Howard relies on the precedent in the Shipman Inquiry judicial review (R (on the application of Wagstaff) v secretary of state for health (2000), where the court held that there was a "presumption" under article 10 that there would be a public inquiry.

Despite strong opposition from the secretary of state, Mr Justice Stanley Burnton granted permission to apply for judicial review, and the full hearing of the case will take place next January.

The case is of importance to any decision to hold an inquiry in private and applies to inquiries into social services' matters as well as those of the health service. Clearly, the more serious the allegations made the more harder it will be for the authorities to justify not giving access to the press and public to an inquiry. The full hearing should define more clearly where the line should be drawn.

Stephen Cragg

Doughty Street Chambers