DSHC Defence was ‘conducted in good faith’

The gov’s defence of the Dr Rosalind Ranson tribunal was conducted in ‘good faith’, but mistakes were made, an independent review has found.

Richard Wright KC review of the DHSC’s handling of the Dr Ranson tribunal has been published, having so far cost taxpayers £320,000.

Mr Wright found that the decision to defend the claim was ‘taken in accordance with established procedure, was legally justifiable and was an appropriate decision for the DHSC to make at the time that it was made’.

However, he also found that there was clear conflict with Kathryn Magson’s duo role as CEO and principal witness and that the failure to identify this conflict and take steps to mitigate its effect ‘contributed to the loss of the litigation and was a serious error’.

Mr Wright added: ‘I am sure that the DHSC did not deliberately withhold documents or make selective disclosures for an improper purpose when conducting the disclosure exercise.’

He has recommended that in future where a chief officer is a disputed witness than their functions as the accountable officer in the context of any litigations should be delegated to another civil servant of equivalent rank outside of that department.

Purely for the sake of an example, if the DHSC chief officer was to be involved in a future incident like this, then the chief officer at the DoI or DEFA should be brought in to handle the response to the litigation.