Dr Rita Pal

Analysis of Freedom of Expression ( Article 10). Initial application written by the applicant acting as litigant in person. Admissibility successful.

Final representation by Aaron Rathmell instructed by Advocate.

Full link
https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-213714

This is a rare victory that failed to be featured by mainstream media outlets . The UK government feared the discovery of the content of late disclosures in the UK case. What was the involvement of the Tory government? That is the question isn't it. This was a cross border arrest conducted without completion of the appropriate paperwork. Stoke Newington Police station is infamous for its mistreatment. The UK government and the police authorities took no action to rectify this injustice nor was an apology ever issued to Dr Pal. Much of the catastrophe of the arrest wasn't described in its horrific detail.

A novel piece of litigation. The first civil litigation of its kind of a whistleblower ( Dr Pal, aged 29 and a junior doctor) had enough of her regulatory body's conceited oppressive behaviour and decided to scribble the particulars of claim one night and file the papers into court the next day. The litigation was done under the Data Protection, Defamation and Human Rights legislation. Credit for the development of these novel arguments goes to R James who was Dr Pal's accessory geek. As a team they created some of the most original legal arguments of their time.

The case was adjourned at the first hearing despite the GMC's multiple attempts to strike it out. Dr Pal subsequently earned enough money in 2 months to hire one of the best barristers on the planet who at the time was Robert Jay QC. He is now Justice Jay at the Royal Courts of Justice. This case went onto win and the GMC were forced to settle out of court.

The background to this case can be read here
https://drritapal.wixsite.com/northstaffordshire

No institution, organisation or company, no matter how august, can make up its own rules on how long it can retain personal data. This message comes through loud and clear in the recent ruling in the case of Dr Rita Pal v The General Medical Council 27 May 2004 (unreported). In this Birmingham District Registry decision from Deputy High Court Judge Charles Harris QC, the court dismissed an application by the GMC and three of its non-medical employees for summary judgment in an action brought against them by a GP for alleged breaches of the Data Protection Act 1998 and the Human Rights Act 2000, and in defamation. The defendants' submissions relating to the defamation claim were given short shrift and those relating the other claims fared little better.

The full report and sources can be found here
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/FreedomOpinion/Pages/ProtectionOfSources.aspx .

My submission was published on the UN website here http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Opinion/Protection/RitaPal.doc but many have had problems downloading it.

With thanks to the United Nations and Prof David Kaye for considering my submission.

This is a copy of the formal complaint to the United Nations and enclosures authored by various individuals over the years.

The United Nations Press Release and Warning on this matter is listed here
https://news.un.org/en/story/2018/04/1008392

Conflict of Interest. Arrested by the Metropolitan Police in 2014 for publication of public material. Cleared by the CPS with no evidence presented in 2015. Civil Litigation ongoing.