General Medical Council

GENERAL MEDICAL COUNCIL

FITNESS TO PRACTISE PANEL (MISCONDUCT)

On:

Monday, 16 June 2008

Held at:

St James’s Buildings

79 Oxford Street

Manchester M1 6FQ

Case of:

RAJENDRA DHWARKA PERSAUD MB BS 1986 University of London

Registration No: 3117660

(Day One)

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

APPLICATION TO AMEND CHARGES 1

ALLEGATIONS 2

OPENING STATEMENT by MR DONNE 4

HUWS, Rhodri, Statement read 16

JACKSON, Trevor, Statement read 17

KENT, Stephen, Statement read 19

BLASS, Thomas, Statement read 20

------

THE CHAIRMAN: Goodmorning, everyone. My name is Anthony Morgan. Iam the Chairman of the Panel and a medical member of it. My fellow Panellists are Miss Karen Heenan, a lay member, Mrs Ailsa Granne, another lay member, and Dr Vaidya, who is a medical member. The Legal Assessor is Sarah Breach. Our Panel Secretary is Liz Meads.

This is a Fitness to Practise Panel operating under the General Medical Council (Fitness to Practise) Rules 2004, in the case of Dr Rajendra Persaud. Dr Persaud is present and is represented by MrRobert Francis QC, instructed by RadcliffesLeBrasseur, Solicitors. MrJeremy Donne QC, instructed by GMC Legal, represents the General Medical Council.

We started a little bit late because there were problems with people being directed to the wrong room and problems with the photocopier. Inow need to ask whether there are any other preliminary matters that either side wish us to deal with. Mr Donne?

MR DONNE: Sir, yes, there are. First of all, thank you very much for the time you have given us this morning. We have had a number of problems with photocopying and the like. Also, there have been discussions between myself and Mr Francis which will probably lead to a request for a further short adjournment.

Ihave an application to amend the charge that is before the Panel. If I can invite you and your colleagues, sir, to turn to the agenda. Paragraph 4, it was the March 2005 edition, so could Iplease apply to amend that? Paragraph 6, the article was published in the British Medical Journal on 6 August 2005. Finally, in paragraph 8, it should read:

“Your articles at 47 above contained passages plagiarised from an article and a book entitled ...”

Ihave notified Mr Francis of those applications and I do not think there is any objection.

MR FRANCIS: No, sir. Iam not taken by surprise by those.

THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. In that case, just for the record, that was item number 4, “February” changes to “March 2005”. Item number 6, the date should read “6 August 2005” and not “17 December 2005”. Item 8 where it says “from an article” we should insert the words “and a book entitled ‘The Man Who Shocked the World’”.

MR DONNE: Sir, thank you very much. Before the charge is put to Dr Persaud which would normally be the next stage Mr Francis has very helpfully notified me of two things that could have a material impact on the length of this hearing. The first is that a witness who was due to give video link evidence from America tomorrow afternoon is no longer required for crossexamination, so I will be able to read his statement in due course. That is very helpful and of course it affects timing.

The second and perhaps more fundamental matter and leads me to apply for a short adjournment now is that Mr Francis has indicated the allegations that Dr Persaud is prepared to admit in this matter. There is one allegation that Dr Persaud is not prepared to admit and Iam asked to take instructions upon it. It is appropriate that Ido so at this stage before Dr Persaud is called upon to enter any admission to any elements of the charge.

Iam sorry about that. It was unavoidable. Mr Francis and Ihave been trying very hard to contact each other recently and we have simply failed because of work commitments.

THE CHAIRMAN: Would you like an adjournment right now?

MR DONNE: Right now, to take instructions. Ido not anticipate it is going to take very long. Iwould perhaps, in the circumstances, ask until 10.30. My instructing solicitor managed to get lost in the building and has only just resurfaced so, again, I apologise for that.

THE CHAIRMAN: So you do not have to go and find him?

MR DONNE: No.

THE CHAIRMAN: If a 20 minute break would satisfy you, then that would be fine with the Panel. We will meet again at 10.30.

MR DONNE: Thank you, sir.

(The Panel adjourned for a short time)

THE CHAIRMAN: Mr Donne, we are with you, Ithink.

MR DONNE: Sir, thank you. First of all, two apologies. Iapologise for not standing up earlier. Ihave just spent two and a half months here in front of another Panel and we all rather got used to sitting down, so I apologise for that.

Secondly, Iapologise for the much greater length of time that it has taken me to have instructions. There was an important matter that had to be considered. It has now been considered, the answer has been given to my learned friend and we can proceed to the reading of the charge.

THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr Donne. In that case, I will ask the Secretary if she will please read the allegations.

THE PANEL SECRETARY: The Panel will inquire into the following allegation against Dr Rajendra Dhwarka Persaud MB BS 1986 University of London.

That being registered under the Medical Act 1983

1. At all material times you were employed as a consultant psychiatrist for the South London and Maudsley NHS Trust and held an honorary post as a senior lecturer at the Institute of Psychiatry, King’s College, University of London;

2. In March 2003 your book From the Edge of the Couch was published by Bantam Books;

3. Your book contained passages plagiarised from various sources, including

(a) an article entitled Capgras Syndrome: a novel probe for understanding the neural representation of the identity and familiarity of persons by William Hirstein and

VS Ramachandran,

(b) an article entitled Autoerotic Asphyxia: A Case Report by Jo Johnstone and Rhodri Huws,

(d) an article entitled An Evolutionary Connection? Personality and Individual Differences by O’ Reilly, Dunbar and Bentall;

4. Your article entitled Why the Media Refuses to Obey was published in the March 2005 edition of Progress in Neurology and Psychiatry;

5. Your article entitled Frailty That Allows Evil to Triumph was published in the Times Educational Supplement on 18 February 2005.

6. Your article entitled The Man Who Shocked the World: The Life and Legacy of Stanley Milgram was published in the British Medical Journal on 6 August 2005;

7. On a date unknown before 30 December 2005 you submitted to the British Medical Journal for publication an article entitled Do You Obey or Do You Rebel;

8. Your articles at 47 above contained passages plagiarised from an article and a book entitled The Man Who Shocked the World written by Professor Thomas Blass and material published on Professor Blass’s website on Stanley Milgram;

9. Your article entitled A Dangerous War on Psychiatry was published in The Independent newspaper on 30 June 2005;

10. Your article at 9 above contained passages plagiarised from an article entitled The Globalization of Scientology; Influence, Control and Opposition in Transnational Markets written by Professor Stephen Kent;

11. In relation to the articles, or portions thereof, set out at 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9 above, these were

(a) not your own work,

(b) copied,

12. Your actions as described at 3, 8 and 11 above were:

(a) inappropriate,

(b) misleading,

(d) liable to bring the profession into disrepute.

and that by reason of the matters set out above your fitness to practise is impaired because of your misconduct.

THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. The slight disruption to our procedures resulted in me forgetting to ask the doctor to identify himself formally, which we need to do at this stage. Dr Persaud, would you kindly stand and give us your full name and GMC registration number?

DR PERSAUD: My name is Dr Rajendra Dhwarka Persaud and my registration number is 3117660.

THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Dr Persaud. Please take your seat again. Mr Francis, are any of the allegations admitted?

MR FRANCIS: Yes, sir. I can tell you on behalf of Dr Persaud that paragraphs 1 to 11 are admitted in their entirety. Paragraphs 12(a) and (b) are admitted, which leaves outstanding, in effect, paragraphs (c) and (d).

THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. I therefore announce that paragraphs 1 to 11 in their entirety are admitted and therefore found proved. Paragraphs 12(a) and 12(b) are admitted and therefore found proved. We turn to Mr Donne to present the GMC’s case, please.

MR DONNE: Sir, could Istart by asking for the assistance of the Panel Associate to distribute copies of the Panel bundle that we have? (Same handed to the Panel) Because of the photocopying difficulties, there is one page that has yet to be added. Ithink we will have that by lunchtime. Also, as will become clear, we had originally marked up passages in the original articles written by other authors compared with the book and articles written by Dr Persaud. That is missing as a result of the further photocopying exercise. We wondered whether we might have access to your bundles at lunchtime just so that we can do that exercise and make it a little bit more understandable for the Panel.

It certainly seems, so far as timing is concerned, that quite possibly by lunchtime we will have completed the evidence that we have available today because, as the Panel appreciate, the vast bulk of it is now admitted. There is one witness to be called. He cannot be here before eleven o’clock tomorrow morning, so that would give the Panel the remainder of this afternoon to read the bundles, which will be necessary because there is a lot of detail contained in them. Infact, the time available is not inconvenient.

Dr Raj Persaud, as he is more usually known, is a consultant psychiatrist and academic who has become a prolific commentator on matters relating to, or affecting, psychiatry in print and broadcast media. He came to the public’s attention as a result of his appearances on daytime television. His media work includes the BBC Radio 4 programme All in the Mind, as well as writings for national newspapers and professional journals.

Dr Persaud is, and at the relevant time was, one of the country’s best known psychiatrists. As such, we submit he occupies a position of particular prominence in his speciality. It follows that the public’s perception of the profession and of the speciality will inevitably be affected by Dr Persaud’s conduct.

In March of 2003, his book From the Edge of the Couch was first published. Ihold a copy of the book for the Panel to see. The introduction to the book makes clear that it is intended to appeal to the layman, the nonspecialist medical practitioner and also those undergoing specialist training in psychiatry. Imake reference to just some brief passages in the introduction. Iquote:

“It is important that the public become aware of the kind of examples in this book. It is precisely these exemplars from which theories are derived.”

Again, at page 27 in the book, he goes on to say:

“In writing this book Ihope to revive the art of the indepth case report by showing my colleagues how much can be learned from them. In particular Ishould like this work to be useful to junior doctors and to training psychiatrists who are attempting to recognize conditions they read about as a cluster of symptoms in textbooks.”

In January of 2006, a Sunday Times journalist contacted a number of academic authors and alerted them to the apparent use of some of their work in Dr Persaud’s book. In the event, an article alleging plagiarism by Dr Persaud appeared in the Sunday Times on

16 April of 2006. As a result, allegations of plagiarism were made against Dr Persaud, which ofcourse he now admits and are clearly borne out by a comparison of the suspect passages with the original papers and articles.

In various submissions at various times Dr Persaud has maintained that he acknowledged the contribution of the original authors in his book. That claim, we say, is, at best, disingenuous. Whilst it is true that the book contains a general acknowledgement thanking many individuals for permitting use of their case studies, there is no, or certainly no adequate, attribution of the relevant passages themselves.

Sir, if Icould invite you and your colleagues to turn to the bundle. Behind tab 1 you will see a photocopy of the front cover of the book, behind which, at page 2, is the acknowledgement section which comes at the beginning of the book. In the penultimate paragraph on page 2, you will see this: