Reprimand for the de Menezes pathologist who altered report
The pathologist involved in the report into the death of police shooting victim Jean Charles de Menezes has been reprimanded over his role in a botched trial which cost taxpayers £5million.
Dr Kenneth Shorrock changed his report into the death of a pensioner during an operation, which led to her surgeon being wrongly charged with manslaughter.
The case collapsed when details emerged of the two conflicting reports - the second of which Dr Shorrock claimed was written in response to a call from the coroner's office asking him to 'reconsider' his view.
Dr Shorrock came into the public eye in the wake of the de Menezes case after inserting inaccurate details about the shooting at Stockwell Tube station, South London, in July 2005 into his report.
He said the 27-year-old Brazilian had vaulted over the ticket barriers while being chased by police before he was shot.
The information appeared to have come from police sources but was later proved to be incorrect, leading to accusations of a cover-up by officers. In fact, Mr de Menezes walked through the barrier and down the escalator.
Dr Shorrock's first report into the death of Gladys Allen, who had surgery in Yorkshire for kidney cancer in 2000, said there was 'no definite evidence of any avoidable deficiency' in the treatment.
The second, stating it was 'likely death was contributed to by inadvertence', was written, he claimed, after the coroner's office asked him to 'reconsider' his view in the light of new information concerning other patients.
The surgeon involved, Dr Hurais Syed, was acquitted of manslaughter because of a lack of evidence.
Dr Syed said: "After the report was changed police decided to bring charges. My career and my life have been destroyed."
A General Medical Council hearing, begun in September 2005, found last week that Dr Shorrock had been 'unprofessional, inconsistent, unreasonable and inappropriate'.
It issued a reprimand, which allows him to continue to work without restrictions.
LA Home Office spokesman said Dr Shorrock was still registered to work for the department.
"It was determined Dr Shorrock had fallen below the standard expected, in that he had simply modified his report rather than issue a completely new report setting out not just his new opinion but the reasons why he had changed his view.
"This was a "procedural" error, made in good faith and all of the statements reflected Dr Shorrock's honest belief at the time the statement was made.
"It was decided the appropriate course of action was to provide him with advice as to his future practice."
