Inquiry told Proceeds of Crime Act should be used after breast op scandal
Jailed surgeon and hospital should pay back millions, says report
THE millions of pounds estimated to have been made by shamed surgeon Ian Paterson and Spire Hospitals should be clawed back under the Proceeds of Crime Act, according to recommendations made to the inquiry into the scandal.
Paterson, who worked at Spire hospitals in Little Aston and Solihull, and at the NHS Solihull Hospital, carried out hundreds of unnecessary operations and procedures, leaving patients in fear and misery. It may never be known why he did it.
The rogue surgeon was jailed in May 2017 at Nottingham Crown Court after being found guilty of 17 counts of wounding with intent, and three of unlawful wounding against 10 former patients. Many others were affected by his botched surgery.
An independent inquiry launched following his conviction is headed by the Right Rev Graham James, Bishop of Norwich, and its findings are expected at the end of the year.
But now a report submitted to the inquiry by the Centre for Health and Public Interest (CHPI) reveals it has consulted on whether Paterson and Spire’s earnings should be examined as potential criminal income, and calls for the exact amounts to be made public.
“No independent financial assessment has been undertaken of the value of Ian Paterson’s work to the private hospital company over the period when he was practising at its hospitals and we would urge the Inquiry to undertake such work,” the CHPI report states.
“Even on a rudimentary analysis, we consider that the amount generated by Paterson and by the private hospital is likely to be significant.
“We have commissioned advice from a Professor of Financial Crime to consider whether the financial gains made from his actions should be viewed as the proceeds of crime and treated as such under the Proceeds of Crime Act.”
Spire Hospitals has paid out more than £27 million in compensation to former patients of the surgeon, who told countless numbers of his victims that they had cancer when they did not. But many patients believe that the earnings from these unnecessary procedures should be treated as proceeds of crime and seized by the police – not least because Paterson received more than £200,000 in legal aid for his 2017 trial, which the Ministry of Justice says it is investigating.
Former patient Sarah Jane Downing, who had an unnecessary lumpectomy in 1997, said the only way to get justice for patients is to hit both Paterson and Spire where it will hurt them most – in the pocket.
“At the trial they made it quite clear that there was a financial incentive for Paterson to be doing this,” she says.
“If we are saying that his motivation for these unnecessary operations, for these crimes, was for financial gain, then why shouldn’t the money be treated as proceeds of crime?
“As soon as it was established that he was doing things wrong, Spire had a moral responsibilty to intervene.”
Ms Downing says there was a missed opportunity when Paterson was arrested to discover just how much the surgeon had made from his operations. “In 2013, they could have – and should have – frozen his assets to become aware of the potential proceeds of crime,” she explained.
“It’s one kind of crime to insist that you do this wrongful operation on people already acknowledged as being sick – but other people, like me, had nothing actually wrong with them.
“So you’re lying to them and telling them there’s something wrong so you can then access their bodies to cut them up for money.
“Had they taken evidence from all his patients in the beginning, then the sheer scale of his financial incentive would have been known.”
David Rowland, Director at CHPI, says that the very nature of the private sector business model puts patient safety at risk.
He has recommended to the inquiry that the private sector’s liability and financial incentive system need to be overhauled to protect patients.
Spire told the Birmingham Post that it would not be commenting on the inquiry until the full findings have been made public later this year.
At the trial they made it quite clear that there was a financial incentive for Paterson to be doing this
Sarah Jane Downing