[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions >> Otote, R (on the application of) v General Medical Council [2008] EWHC 998 (Admin) (18 April 2008) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2008/998.html Cite as: [2008] EWHC 998 (Admin)

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2A 2LL
		18 April 2008

1. MR JUSTICE DAVIS: This is an appeal brought by proceedings issued on 11 February 2008 by Dr Idowu Otote, pursuant to the provisions of section 40 of the Medical Act 1983 (as amended). By this appeal Dr Otote seeks to challenge a decision by a Panel of the General Medical Council given on 18 January 2008. The decision in question was one to make a suspension order against Dr Otote for a period of four months, pending a substantive review of a previous suspension imposed upon him.
2. At, and prior to, that actual determination there had previously been a dispute as to whether the review, which had been scheduled for January 2008, should be adjourned. There was lengthy argument on that and, in the event, the Panel determined that the review should be adjourned on Dr Otote's application. There then followed a discussion as to how long an adjournment should take place. The Panel decided that the adjournment should be one of four months and the suspension order was made for that four-month period, pending the substantive review. Dr Otote does not seek to challenge the decision to adjourn. Indeed he himself had made the application to adjourn, albeit not for a term of four months; but it is the suspension of four months which he does seek to challenge.
3. The background facts are conveniently, and, in my view, accurately, summarised in the written skeleton argument put in by Mr Englehart QC on behalf of the respondent, the General Medical Council. There is a lengthy background to this matter. Dr Otote had originally been found guilty of serious professional misconduct by the former Professional Conduct Committee of the GMC on 28 February 2003. The alleged misconduct consisted of inappropriate behaviour, including an indecent assault, and language towards nurses and also poor medical treatment of patients. Dr Otote strongly disputed these allegations, but, in the event, he was suspended from the medical register for 12 months. He appealed to the Privy Council, but his appeal was dismissed.
4. There was then a review hearing on 21 October 2004 and the former Professional Conduct Committee imposed conditions, at that stage, on Dr Otote's registration. Those conditions were reviewed by a Fitness to Practise Panel on 17 October 2005 and extended for a further 12 months. On 4 November 2006, a Panel imposed a 12-month suspension on Dr Otote's registration. By then it would appear that the essential issue was whether Dr Otote was then fit to practise, and, in particular, as to whether he had sufficiently kept up to date with his medical knowledge and skills. Dr Otote appealed to the High Court against that decision of 4 November 2006, but his appeal was dismissed by Collins J on 13 February 2007. A subsequent attempt to apply for permission to appeal from that order was dismissed.
5. In the course of the hearing before me today, Dr Otote, in some respects, has sought to reopen and to challenge some of the findings and conclusions made by Collins J, not least that a suspension order had been made. But that simply is not open to Dr Otote at this particular stage before me. The decision of Collins J is binding and final on the matters it had to decide.
6. The legal position has been debated before me. I mention it because it seems to me, in truth, to be relevant only by way of background, given the substance of Dr Otote's present complaints about the determination of 18 January 2008. Section 35D of the Medical Act 1983 (as amended) provides that where an allegation against a person is referred under section 35C to a Fitness to Practise Panel, subsections (2) and (3) then apply. By subsection (4) it is provided that:

"Where a Fitness to Practise Panel have given a direction that a person's registration be suspended- ...

(b) under subsection (10) or (12) below;..."

Then subsection (5) below applies. That subsection provides in these terms:

"In such a case, a Fitness to Practise Panel may, if they think fit-

(a) direct that the current period of suspension shall be extended for such further period from the time when it would otherwise expire as may be specified in the direction;"

I do not think I need read more of that subsection, save to refer to the closing words which are to the effect that the Panel should not extend any period of suspension under this section for more than 12 months at a time. Subsection (12), which is apposite in this case, provides that in the specified circumstances a Fitness to Practise Panel may, if they think fit:

"(b)direct that the person's registration in the Register shall be suspended during such period not exceeding twelve months as may be specified in the direction;"

7. Also relevant are the provisions of Schedule 4 to the Act, and in particular paragraphs 10 and 11. By paragraph 10 it is provided that a direction for suspension shall take effect where, in the case of an appeal being brought, the appeal is dismissed. In paragraph 11 it is provided that:

"If, while a person's registration is suspended under section 35D (2) of this Act, a direction is given under subsection (5) ... the supension of his registration shall continue to have effect throughout any period which may intervene between the time when, but for this sub-paragraph, the suspension of his registration would end and the time when the direction takes effect in accordance with paragraph 10 above or an appeal against it under section 40 of this Act is ...determined."

8. Although Dr Otote was, I think, minded to dispute the applicability of those provisions to his particular case, those, on the matters drawn to my attention by him and by Mr Englehart, seem to me to cover the present position. In any event, that is, as I see it, by way of background only, because the complaint is as to the rationality and fairness of the decision actually reached on 18 January.
9. The position was that the review hearing in question was scheduled to take place in Manchester starting on 16 January 2008. It is quite clear that before that hearing Dr Otote had made a number of written requests for the hearing to be adjourned, which requests had been refused. He renewed his application for an adjournment at the outset of the hearing on 16 January. Dr Otote was not present himself, in the physical sense, at the hearing in Manchester, but he was linked to it by a video link. Although at one stage in the argument before me today Dr Otote seemed minded to say that he had not sought an adjournment, it is abundantly plain that he had - indeed that was the subject of a substantive debate and a decision by the Panel - even though I can accept that Dr Otote had not been necessarily contemplating an adjournment for as much as four months.
10. After hearing very lengthy submissions from Dr Otote on the one hand and counsel for the GMC on the other hand, the Panel decided to adjourn the matter. The position is set out in the transcript. Dr Otote, as part of his grounds of attack, and his grounds are very wide ranging indeed, says the transcript is doctored and is utterly unreliable. Those are his assertions. Those, it may be, are his beliefs, but there is nothing before me in point of fact to justify such assertions. The transcript of the hearing was prepared by independent transcribers and there is nothing whatsoever to cause me to think that the transcripts are inaccurate, notwithstanding what Dr Otote now says. At all events, the transcript clearly records Dr Otote being pleased at the outcome of his adjournment application, thanking the Panel and saying, "God bless you". Dr Otote denies saying anything of the kind.
11. I add, by way of comment, that he used that phrase to me personally when argument this morning finished. Again it matters not. The point is that his application to adjourn succeeded.
12. There was then a debate as to what should be done. Clearly the matter had to go off for what was going to be a lengthy further hearing. On Dr Otote's stance, if that hearing took place after the expiry of the previous suspension order made, which by reason of the judgment of Collins J, having been given on 13 February 2007, was due to expire on 13 February 2008, Dr Otote would be subject to no suspension at all, notwithstanding that his fitness to practise remained in issue and was to be the subject of the adjourned review hearing. Understandably, therefore, the GMC applied for a further suspension pending the substantive review hearing, which application was open to it, and an order in respect of which could jurisdictionally be made by the Panel, under the provisions of the Medical Act 1983.
13. The Panel heard the submissions of counsel for the GMC and heard submissions from Dr Otote as to what adjournment should take place and whether there should be any suspension in the interim period. The determination of the Panel was in these terms:

"Dr Otote, having determined to adjourn this hearing, the Panel has considered whether to extend the current period of suspension until such time as a review hearing can proceed. In doing so, the Panel has carefully considered all the information before it. It has also taken account of the submissions made by Ms Bex on behalf of the General Medical Council and the submissions made by you. Ms Bex submitted that it would be appropriate to extend the current suspension for at least six months. You submitted that any extension of your suspension would be unfair and disproportionate. In addition, you submitted that you only requested an adjournment for a few weeks and wish for this hearing to reconvene before the current period of suspension expires.

The Panel has accepted and applied the advice of the Legal Assessor that it is a matter for this Panel, exercising its own independent judgment, whether to extent or vary the current sanction. In deliberation, it should have regard to the principle of proportionality, the interest of the doctor and the protection of patients and the wider public interest.

Having carefully considered all the circumstances and the submissions of both parties, the Panel has determined that it would be proportionate and necessary for the protection of patients and in the public interest to extend the current period of suspension for a period of four months, under Section 35D(5)(a) of the Medical Act 1983 (as amended) from 13 February 2008.

Within the further period of suspension, your case will be reviewed by a Fitness to Practise Panel and you will be expected to attend and/or be represented. You will be informed of the date of this hearing in due course.

Unless you exercise your right of appeal, the further period of suspension will take effect from the date when the current order for suspension expires. Should you choose to appeal this decision, the current order for suspension will remain in effect until any appeal has been concluded. A note explaining your right of appeal will be sent to you.

That concludes matters today. Thank you for all your attendance."

14. Some of the flavour of Dr Otote's arguments before me today are perhaps captured by his complaint before me that, notwithstanding the Chairman saying that that concluded matters today, there was then further debate and discussion. This was because counsel then appearing for the GMC sought for a clarification of reasons given as to the selected date of the adjournment. There was then some exchange on that, and the Chairman explained why it has left it at that date. The Chairman was, of course, entitled to deal with those points as he did.
15. For the purposes of this appeal Dr Otote makes some very strong allegations indeed. He makes allegations of forgery. He says that the GMC were discriminatory and, in effect, acted in bad faith. He makes accusations against the legal assessor who was involved at the hearing. He, in effect, accuses the GMC of engaging in chicanery in the entire process, and he makes allegations of discrimination against him across the board.
16. The grounds advanced by Dr Otote are also very extensive indeed. He has very volubly and forcibly expanded those grounds before me. I gave him several hours of argument in which to do that, although I rather think he would have liked even longer orally to develop his submissions. The fact is he has had ample opportunity to advance his case. It would be quite impracticable for me to deal with each and every point raised in the written and oral grounds of argument advanced by Dr Otote, not least because many of them, if I may say so, are something of a variation on an original written theme. I will, however, endeavour to deal with the main thrust of what he says. Very helpfully Dr Otote did summarise in numbered points in his written grounds what his grounds of objection really are.
17. In saying that I make clear that I am not concerned to go all over again over what has happened in the past and over past decisions of the GMC on previous occasions, or past decisions of the courts on previous occasions. Furthermore, Dr Otote has sought to challenge the conduct of the GMC in respect of matters arising since he lodged his appeal. Again that is not the subject matter of this particular appeal. I do not think it open to Dr Otote to do that, his remedy being confined to challenging the decision of 18 January 2008. Although I think Dr Otote would at least say that what has happened since then, in the context of both this appeal and of the arrangements for the forthcoming hearing, is indicative of the high-handed and unfair approach of the GMC towards him.
18. The first point raised by Dr Otote in his grounds is that he was prevented from presenting crucial, significant and new evidence, and it is said that matters were not taken into account by the Panel. He itemises at great length various documents and materials which he says should have been considered. Dr Otote did in fact arrange to have placed before me a very great quantity of written documents and materials, including a blue tin box, various medical bulletins and magazines, and the like. I think his overall aim was to to show that he had indeed been keeping up-to-date with modern medical practice. I make clear, as I made clear to Dr Otote at the time of his argument, that I have not closely studied any of those documents.
19. The point I think Dr Otote would make is that it behove the GMC, in deciding in the context of the adjourned decision whether or not to suspend him, to have regard to these matters before, in effect, suspending him further from practice: which of course, so far as he is concerned, is a very serious matter indeed.
20. In my view there are several answers to that particular complaint. First, it is not obvious to me that Dr Otote had indeed sought to place these before the Panel on 18 January. He was in London on the video link; the Panel was in Manchester. The impression I got was that these documents were physically with Dr Otote in London. Second, there had, in the period leading up to the hearing of January 2008, been correspondence between the GMC and Dr Otote. For example, by letter dated 2 August 2007 a letter was written by the GMC to Dr Otote specifically with reference to the review hearing of this case scheduled for 16 to 18 January 2008. An indication was given in that letter that if Dr Otote wished to return to clinical practice, then the Panel considered it would be appropriate for him to undergo a phase 2 performance assessment prior to the review hearing. Further, it was indicated that in such a scenario the Panel would expect to have at the review hearing a number of papers, including documentary evidence of courses or seminars he had attended, medical reading he had undertaken, and the like. The letter went on to say:

"The assessment will need to take place at least two months prior to the hearing in January 2007."(sic)

I think it is indicative of Dr Otote's approach that he latched on to that and said that that letter was completely erroneous and false because there was no hearing in January 2007, that was long past, and the prospective hearing was January 2008. However, it is blindingly obvious that that is a typographical error, and there could be no doubt at all in Dr Otote's mind that the writer was referring to the forthcoming hearing in January 2008, which indeed had been specifically referred to in the first paragraph of the letter. It is regrettable that points of that kind continue to be taken by Dr Otote in support not only of his position, but in support of his allegations of bad faith against the General Medical Council. Perhaps more importantly, notwithstanding the invitation clearly expressed in that letter from the GMC, Dr Otote declined to undergo any performance assessment and did not obviously respond to the suggestion that he put in further written materials.

21. The final point which really is obvious is this: whether or not Dr Otote had kept his medical knowledge and skills up to date and was fit to practise was going to be the subject of the very lengthy hearing now scheduled for May 2008. It is entirely understandable why the Panel would think it inappropriate to start going into the underlying merits at that particular stage, particularly when Dr Otote had previously been given the opportunities that I have mentioned. Accordingly, as it seems to me, there is nothing in that particular point at all.
22. I should also add that for the purposes of this appeal Dr Otote put in two witness statements: one from a Dr Dutt and another from Mrs Hope Otote. It seemed to me those witness statements added nothing to his appeal. They are simply, in effect, the expression of opinion of two individuals agreeing with Dr Otote that in Dr Otote's view there had been unfairness at the hearing.
23. I need not deal further with any other particular aspects of that particular ground. I move on next to the second ground advanced by Dr Otote which is under the heading: "Material Irregularity and Other Significant and Serious Irregularities Occurred and/or Fraudulent Practices." One of the points here made is the point I have already mentioned, which is that Dr Otote complains that the transcript of the hearing was doctored. As I have indicated, there is absolutely no evidence (and I use the word evidence advisedly) before me to support any such allegation. It simply was an assertion of Dr Otote. I should say, and it may be partly because Dr Otote is not himself a lawyer, that he seems to equate an assertion by himself with an evidential proof of fact, when, of course, there is a material distinction.
24. In this regard Dr Otote also complains that he did not receive the transcript in time. But that seems to me to have no bearing on his challenge to the decision of 18 January. In this context he further complains that he was not sufficiently supplied with a bundle of documents that was used before the Panel hearing in adequate time before this hearing went ahead. I can see nothing in that particular point as justifying any assertion of unfairness, as he seeks to say.
25. Yet further, in this particular context (although he made this point in other contexts as well) Dr Otote seems to be complaining about the fact that he was not provided with any audio or visual recording of the hearing. He has been told, on several occasions, that there was no audio or visual recording. He seems disinclined to believe that; but I have no basis to conclude on the evidence that that is anything other than the truth. In any event, what this court is concerned with is what happened at the actual hearing and the decision made. It was not explained at all that these aspects disadvantage Dr Otote, and, as I have said, the transcript itself was, I am satisfied, an authentic transcript when produced.
26. The next ground advanced by Dr Otote is that the decision was unlawful and/or an abuse of process. None of the points here, as it seems to me, have any justification at all. One of the points is the point I have already mentioned, namely the clear error in referring to the hearing as being January 2007, when everyone, not least Dr Otote himself, knew that the review hearing was taking place in January 2008.
27. Dr Otote went so far as to assert, and show me a copy of a receipt document, that the GMC forged a signature showing delivery to him of certain documents. Quite why the GMC wished to forge a signature is unexplained. I was totally unpersuaded by Dr Otote's assertion that there had been a forgery. He adduced no proper evidence of that, apart from his statement; and in any event all these complaints seem nothing to the point, because the simple fact is he did know that the hearing was on 16 January and he himself attended via the video link. It seems surprising that points of this kind should be pursued given that that was the situation.
28. In this context, as indeed other contexts, Dr Otote also made complaint about the involvement of the legal assessor. He complains that the legal assessor already knew him, having had experience of him in other hearings. But the answer to that is, "So what?". He also says that the legal assessor improperly saw the Panel on occasions, and he had no idea what advice she may have been giving to the Panel. Again no proper complaint is made out on the evidence. The transcript shows that at one stage the assessor did indicate the advice that she gave to the Panel, and that was pronounced in public so that everyone knew what was going on. I reject Dr Otote's complaints in this regard; I reject his assertion that there was a travesty of justice; and I reject his assertion that there was any illegality.
29. In this context Dr Otote also asserts that the decision to suspend was irrational, perverse or wholly unreasonable. That perhaps is, or ought to be, the nub of Dr Otote's complaint, but in my view there really is nothing in it. Once the Panel had decided, perhaps generously to Dr Otote, to adjourn the substantive hearing to another day, they had to decide what to do in the interim. By making the suspension order that they did for that interim period they clearly were holding the ring. Dr Otote had adduced no evidence at that stage to show that the position, which prevailed at the previous suspension hearing, no longer prevailed and that he was now fit to practise. Indeed, that remained to be decided. It was eminently rational and reasonable for the Panel to do as it did, holding the ring, pending the further substantive review hearing with a further right for an interim review hearing in the meantime, if needed.
30. The next complaint by Dr Otote is that there was unlawful intimidation of him at the hearing. He says that generally the hearing was conducted in breach of various articles of the European Convention on Human Rights, including, amongst others, Article 6, although he relies also on Article 14. He says that the hearing was entirely unfair and that he was intimidated. Indeed he says that the Panel members were biased and their decisions were significantly affected by bias, and matters of the like.
31. Again these are assertions by Dr Otote. They are simply not borne out by the evidence. The transcript that I have read, and which I have said I accept is authentic, would seem to indicate the Panel bending over backwards to do justice to Dr Otote in the face of him being very forcible in his various assertions.
32. A further flavour of the complaints that Dr Otote makes is that he complains that the Panel, as constituted, had a different identity in terms of personnel from those individuals of whom he had been notified prior to the hearing as being the Panel. There are often cases where the constitution of the Panel has to change from that previously notified, and there is nothing significant in that at all.
33. The next ground that is sought to be advanced by Dr Otote is that it is said that the Panel failed to follow proper procedures, or breached regulations, when considering the application or making its decision. It is very difficult to follow the basis for this submission. There is no doubt at all that under rule 29 the Panel had power to adjourn. Dr Otote made a reference to rule 16 and said that had not been complied with, but that has nothing to do with this matter at all. There is nothing that I can see which indicates that the Panel failed to comply with the rules, failed to comply with proper procedures, or failed to cause a fair hearing to be conducted. As to Dr Otote's various complaints about the lack of recordings and the like, as I have indicated, there is simply nothing in that. The necessary recording was one from which a transcript could be taken and that was duly done.
34. In this context in argument before me, Dr Otote complained that having succeeded on the issue of adjournment he was not given sufficient time to prepare and marshal his arguments as to whether or not he should be subject to further suspension pending the final hearing, and, further, how long the period of adjournment should be. Reading the transcript it seems to me that he was given sufficient opportunity to advance his arguments on that. He made his position absolutely clear that he did not think there should be any adjournment beyond 13 February 2008, and the simple fact is that having heard the competing arguments the Panel did not accede to Dr Otote's submission in this regard. But he had a full and fair opportunity to be heard on it.
35. The next ground is one of victimisation and discrimination. To some extent this really reflects what I have said already. It seems to me that really there is nothing in these points. Indeed, it is a somewhat surprising allegation to make, given that the Panel had been prepared to agree to his request for an adjournment, even if in the result the adjournment was significantly longer than he would have wished. So far as the complaints against the legal assessor are concerned, I think there is nothing in that. He also makes complaints against the lawyers appearing on behalf of the GMC. All I can say is I can see no evidential basis for any unfair conduct on their behalf. They, of course, have duties to their own client. So far as I can see they discharged them in an entirely proper and professional way.
36. Then Dr Otote said the Panel did not have jurisdiction over the case. In this regard Dr Otote particularly stressed the point that he was unrepresented. The fact that he was unrepresented does not, of itself, mean that the Panel had no jurisdiction. On the contrary, the Panel clearly did. Dr Otote says that he was unfairly disadvantaged; but no doubt it was open to him to seek to have representation and, at all events, I know not the reasons why he was there appearing on his own behalf. I was told that on occasions in the past, although not recently, Dr Otote had had legal representation, no doubt through the services of the MDU. I simply cannot follow the argument that there was a lack of jurisdiction here. Further, to the extent that Dr Otote argued that the Tribunal was not independent or impartial, again it seems to me to be entirely misplaced.
37. The final point raised in his written grounds is that Dr Otote says that he suffered prejudice by virtue of the decision of the Panel. He says that a key witness, whom he does not name in his written grounds, but who he told me was Mrs Hope Otote, was not in fact able to give evidence and that that was unfair. I cannot see how that arises, given that the decision in favour of Dr Otote was one to adjourn. In this context Dr Otote renews his attack on involvement of the legal assessor, but, as I have indicated, there is nothing in that.
38. Overall Dr Otote submitted that it would be in the interests of justice to interfere with this appeal; the way in which the hearing below was conducted was unfair and infringed his human rights; there has been chicanery on the part of the GMC, doctoring transcripts, and so on; and that the decision to suspend him, pending the substantive review hearing, was irrational and perverse. However, for the reasons I have sought to give, in my view there is nothing in any of those particular points.
39. I repeat that I have not sought to cover every facet and every nuance of every argument advanced by Dr Otote. I have dealt with all the main heads of his argument and, having considered all the points he has put forward, I am of the clear view that this appeal should be dismissed.
40. MR ENGLEHART QC: I would ask for the appeal to be dismissed with costs. I hope your Lordship has a schedule.
41. THE DEPUTY JUDGE: It has been put on my desk.
42. THE APPLICANT: I would ask for a postponement of the matter because I was not given what you have before you. So I will ask for a postponement.
43. THE DEPUTY JUDGE: You have not seen any schedule?
44. THE APPLICANT: No, I have not seen anything at all. I cannot look at any schedule now. Is it possible for me to pay any money? I would ask for a postponement of this matter completely. For an appellant in person I would ask for a postponement completely.
45. THE DEPUTY JUDGE: I, of course, cannot say whether he received it, but I think your Lordship should know that those instructing behaved perfectly properly. They sent it out on 14 April. I have the letter here.
46. THE APPLICANT: I have not received anything. I would humbly ask for a postponement.
47. THE DEPUTY JUDGE: Perhaps, Mr Engleman, you show Dr Otote the letter so he can refresh his memory?
48. THE APPLICANT: No, I have not seen it.
49. THE DEPUTY JUDGE: How do you know? Look at it first.
50. THE APPLICANT: I have looked at it. I say I have not seen it. I have just told you. I cannot change the words I have said. I would ask for a postponement.
51. THE DEPUTY JUDGE: Just a moment. You have said you have not seen the letter when you have not even troubled to look at it.
52. THE APPLICANT: I have looked at it.
53. THE DEPUTY JUDGE: You look at it properly, will you, please.
54. THE APPLICANT: I have looked at--
55. THE DEPUTY JUDGE: Are you saying you have never received any letter?
56. THE APPLICANT: No, I have not received anything. They did not pass anything through the court for me.
57. THE DEPUTY JUDGE: You have never seen any schedule of costs?
58. THE APPLICANT: They have never passed anything through the courts. Please, it is a wrong application. I would ask for a complete postponement.
59. THE DEPUTY JUDGE: Dr Otote says he has never received that so far.
60. MR ENGLEHART QC: What I would invite you--
61. THE DEPUTY JUDGE: You have asked for an order for costs, but I cannot summarily assess them.
62. MR ENGLEHART QC: What I would ask for is costs to be assessed, and your Lordship to make an order for a relatively modest interim payment.
63. THE APPLICANT: It is impossible. You cannot do that to come to the hearing. You had all the opportunities. They were served with a Notice of Appeal for quite a long time. They had the full opportunities. The court was not even given this--
64. THE DEPUTY JUDGE: There are two points here, Dr Otote: first, should you pay costs at all? Secondly, if so, in what amount? Can you deny you should pay costs?
65. THE APPLICANT: No, it is impossible.
66. THE DEPUTY JUDGE: Do you agree that in principle you should pay costs?
67. THE APPLICANT: Probably that could be that because I am not quite sure. I can assure you that I don't even pay costs for court. For court cases I do not pay costs. I ask for exemption. So I don't know the principle for court. They don't ask me to pay costs. I write to them and ask them--
68. THE DEPUTY JUDGE: It is not normally a reason for a court not to make a costs order that a person is unable to afford to pay them.
69. THE APPLICANT: I usually ask for my costs back. For the transcript, as I told you, Mr Collins was the one who paid for it. He paid for the transcript we are using today. I will write to you again for the same costs that you should make some payment from me.
70. THE DEPUTY JUDGE: Mr Englehart, what I will do is I will order this appeal be dismissed. I will order that Dr Otote pay your costs of the appeal to be assessed on a standard basis, but I will not make any interim order for payment in the circumstances. That means that I have ordered you to pay the costs, but they will have to be assessed and then you will have a proper chance to consider what the right amount is. You have to pay the costs in principle, but I will not decide the amount today.
71. THE APPLICANT: All right. If I could have the papers. You see the bundles. You know you said I can have them back.
72. THE DEPUTY JUDGE: Most certainly you can. The court papers ought to stay with the court.
73. THE APPLICANT: Just those, the blue.
74. THE DEPUTY JUDGE: You will want those back for the next hearing. They can be given back to you. Is there any other application you wish to make to me, Dr Otote? Is that it?
75. THE APPLICANT: No, I make those two applications to you in volume 2 and volume 3 and I thought you would have been lenient. I do not know what application that you wish me to make. I had thought that you would have been lenient with me and specifically some directions as you find that this hearing, even if you believe that--
76. THE DEPUTY JUDGE: I have given my judgment, Dr Otote, and that is the end of the matter.
77. THE APPLICANT: No, these are still applications. You said: do I have applications. I am making applications.
78. THE DEPUTY JUDGE: I did not have that in mind at all. What I really had in mind, and I do not think it is a matter for me: is are you seeking permission to appeal to take this further to the Court of Appeal?
79. THE APPLICANT: No, I will ask your indulgence to me to grant me permission, if you do not mind. If you grant it to me I will be very grateful to you, because--
80. THE DEPUTY JUDGE: I am not sure I have jurisdiction. It is the second appeal. Dr Otote, the rules are that this is a second stage. You failed in front of the Panel, you have now failed in front of the court. Accordingly, even if I otherwise were minded to give you permission to appeal, only the Court of Appeal could let you take this matter further.
81. THE APPLICANT: They usually ask the Court of Appeal, usually say that--
82. THE DEPUTY JUDGE: Can I tell you what my ruling is: I do not think I have any jurisdiction on permission to appeal. If I did I would refuse you permission to appeal because I think you have no realistic prospects of success at all. That is my decision on that.
83. THE APPLICANT: One thing that I say that you should do for me because it is not even that, my Lord, that was even quite what I had in mind, you understand, because I believe that what a value (?) they said if you say ,"No permission I believe you", but it is good in a matter like this to--
84. THE DEPUTY JUDGE: I am not going to debate it further.
85. THE APPLICANT: Let me say what I want to say? At least if you will allow you me because it will also help you and help me.
86. THE DEPUTY JUDGE: This hearing is now over, Dr Otote. I suggest you concentrate on preparing for the forthcoming hearing in May. Thank you very much.