Myhill wins Judicial Review at High Court

I posted this on the main thread but thought maybe it had been lost.

Dr Myhill's case is to be heard by the High Court in London in the week beginning 29th November, 2010. Further news on the exact date will be sent out as soon as Dr Myhill is notified by the court.

We expected the news to break in another newspaper tomorrow but the Shropshire Star are the first to carry the news and a little ahead of schedule.

For the full article see:

Sarah has received many letters, cards and emails since the last IOP hearing and these have greatly appreciated. Let's all hope for a successful and just outcome in the High Court.
Sofa, UK
Hi Craig.

I took the liberty of editing your post to fix the link and correct a couple of typos.

I haven't been able to follow up since the IOP hearing, much as I have wanted to, but I'm hoping to write something up about the 2nd IOP hearing soon.

The transcript of the 2nd IOP doesn't seem to have been posted on the Support Dr Myhill site, any clues as to why, or whether it will appear there soon? I'm intending to post my text copy of it here soon, when I find time to format it etc. It bears close analysis, there is some quite extraordinary material in the 'expert witnesses' testimony - the stuff about the contraceptive pill, the disputes about exactly which types of cancer it can cause, and the financial interests around the mammography just blew my mind...I really must write all that up for people on this board...

I'm also curious about what survives of the Bad Science discussion thread re: Dr Myhill. That thread was 'lost' by the Bad Science administrators, and since their site was set up to hide from Google and from the Wayback Machine, and since their backups also failed, they say the thread is now unrecoverable. This does seem awfully convenient for them, given the wealth of evidence contained therein and the potential for legal actions arising from comments made within it...but those fine minds on Bad Science have analysed the situation and unanimously concluded that it was obviously an honest mistake. A rare circumstance where no evidence whatsoever is required in order for them to form a firm opinion, it would seem...though no doubt they will continue to insist on evidence for all other assertions (other than lies about ME/CFS patient groups), and I hold out little hope that many of them will spot the hypocrisy inherent in demands for evidence by people who delete, withhold and suppress evidence that is inconvenient to them...but perhaps it may just be a stark enough example to make one or two of them think...the example does illustrate a key problem with their whole philosophy rather well...

I have been wondering: Parts of the thread were quoted at the IOP hearing, and other parts of it have been quoted here and elsewhere, so I have been wondering whether anybody managed to mirror part or all of the thread, and whether it really is irrevocably lost. Although the thread was distressing for many ME/CFS patients, it did provide some good evidence of the kind of abuse and disrespect we are subjected to, which I was hoping to document somewhere...if I ever found the time. There was also evidence in that thread of Jonas' irresponsible and unprofessional approach to the case, indeed I have even been wondering whether there was sufficient evidence there to mount a separate case against him (bringing the medical profession into disrepute? certainly so, from my POV), so it would seem a great shame if they really have managed to destroy all such evidence.

So: if anybody knows whether that infamous thread has been mirrored anywhere, or whether anybody is gathering together quotes drawn from it, I'd be most interested to hear from you - by PM if necessary.

Anyway, thanks for continuing to keep us posted Craig, and best wishes to all for the High Court case next week.


Thank you Craig, I wonder how the poor woman is going to pay for this as she had to cover her own legal fees for the unfair hearing.

I have several pages of Jonas's remarks from the original BS (so conveniently 'accidentally' lost) thread copied if Dr Myhill wants them.
Thanks Min.

IOP this Thursday - 23 Dec.

Regarding Jonas posts, yes anything you have would be very useful, although without giving too much away, we have of course had a computer expert on this from day one.

Dr Myhill has her next IOP with the GMC in London tomorrow. This is not the Judicial Review which as mentioned is set for mid January.She is due to speak at 9.30am. I shall post her speech here tomorrow morning after she has started to speak. As soon as anything is known after that I will keep you all updated.



Senior Member
Bravo! Bravo! Great speech. I'm not an attorney, but I would guess that Dr. Myhill has plenty of material there to cause an honest court to rule in her favor, if the GMC does not. I would also think that airing all of this in an open court setting would be embarrassing to the GMC. If they have any sense, I would think they would want to avoid that.

News just received that Sarah has gone home due to the weather conditions rather than wait for the determination of the Panel today. As soon as the result is known I will post it here.
Sorry not to have more news for you.

Have just spoken with Sarah and the GMC have said that the decision of the IOP will be made sometime on or before 6th January. A transcript of the events should be available tomorrow and this will be posted in the usual places in the usual way. Thank you once again for all your messages of support. These really do help us, and in particular, Sarah, keep going.
Here is Sarah's personal message about the IOP yesterday:

General Medical Council vs Dr Sarah Myhill Interim Orders Panel HearIng December 23rd 2010 Christmas EVE 2010

I was summoned to a 4th IOP by the GMC and appeared yesterday. I represented myself and was accompanied by my friend Peter Endicott.

Initially I made a “preliminary submission”. These have to do with legal arguments and they took up much of the day. As you know my attempts to get justice through Judicial Review at the High Court were thwarted by the weather. My Judicial Review is now mid January. My presentation to the IOP therefore was essentially my presentation to the Judicial Review.

I argued that the GMC had acted illegally with respect to their own Rules, the 1983 Medical Act, the Data Protection Act and Human Rights legislation. Furthermore the GMC were in breach of their own procedures both before and after my October IOP. I also informed the Panel that members of the GMC prosecution and adjudication team had been reported by me to the GMC for dishonesty and malfeasance in public office. One had misled me with respect to my rights to call witnesses. Another had told lies in response to procedural and evidential matters raised in my letters to the GMC. I presumed that investigation of these officers was underway.

These detailed arguments are posted at

In the event I had to argue my case with the GMC at every turn and so my presentation did not proceed as smoothly as it was written. The full transcript will be made available shortly.

My most important point was that the GMC have so far failed to particularise the allegations. This was despite me reminding them of this in November and the GMC legal team telling me that they were working on this. However the Panel and the GMC prosecutor, Gareth Branston, argued that because I had responded then I must know what the allegations were. As I commented, I was invited to submit observations, not respond to allegations. I asked the Panel to tell me what they thought the allegations were, but I was told that I was not permitted to cross-examine the Panel.

This is a clear breach of Humans Rights whereby the accused must know what he is accused of.

The second section had to do with details of my case. The essential background reading to my case had been carefully and logically documented and was contained within three bulky documents namely:

• The Defence Document - a list of all the GMC procedural and evidential errors

• The Patients’ Experience Document – all the letters, emails and petition comments had been collated in an organised way so that the GMC could see exactly who had been helped by my advice and advice contained within the website. Importantly there were many communications from patients who had been directly harmed as a result of GMC actions against me. Many communications were from fellow professionals supportive of my approach to medicine.

• The Medical References Document- this contained nearly 400 references which underpinned the opinions expressed on my website. Those relating to specific concerns raised by the GMC were flagged up separately.

All these documents were made available to the GMC in good time before my Oct 7th IOP. I assumed that the Panel had read them. However in the bundle of documents presented to me for my December IOP, nearly all this documentation was missing. At this point it was clear to me that the October IOPs had read none of these substantial submissions.

So again I made available to the GMC these three documents, again they were sent electronically in good time for yesterday’s IOP to my case officer Paul Bridge in Manchester.

As I opened my presentation of my case I asked the Panel to show me that the above three documents were in front of them and that they had read them. The documents were not there. The excuse was that the weather meant that the pen drive on which these documents were contained was stuck in the post. I advised the GMC that email was an option. The GMC managed to find the relevant computer expert with the skills to open an email with attachments and so at 3pm the GMC started to print out the 243 page Defence Document, the many communications that made up the PED and the nearly 400 references of the MRD.

Although it was clear to me that the GMC had not listened to nor heard any of my previous submissions (and this were stated in the October Determination), it was now clear even to them that they were unable to read everything I had submitted in the time left in the day. So the Panel arranged for a further IOP on Jan 6th. However they suggested that they may be able to come to a Determination before then if the information that I had submitted was found adequate. Before hearing my evidence, prosecutor Gareth Branston had recommended to the Panel at the start of the day that to continue my suspension from medical practise was appropriate.

The GMC have made it their normal practise to accept any submission from any source, often anonymous, in their efforts to find evidence against me. An interesting submission was presented to the Panel and used by GMC prosecutor Gareth Branston in his case against me:

Mr Bridge
I would like to draw your attention to the following information which is doing the rounds on the internet. It would appear that Dr Myhill is still practising as a dr despite being suspended by the GMC. Surely this is unacceptable and unlawful?

Joan Russett
“Sarah became an impromptu midwife in the early hours of Saturday morning when family friend, Rosemary Hogg, went into labour her home in one of the most rurally isolated areas of Powys. Hearing that the birth was imminent and no other held was available. Dr Myhill wasted no time in gathering together her kit and setting off on foot across the mountainside despite bitter winds, sub-zero temperatures and four inches of icy snow packed hard on the ground. After helping to bring the new babes safely into the world, Sarah ensured that mother and offspring were tucked up snug and warm and doing well before returning home next morning”

I believe the evidence base for this statement can be found at:

The full transcript will be posted at as soon as it comes available.

Happy Christmas to you all!



Senior Member
Any good news of Dr Myhill is marvellous - we all know this is a witch-hunt - the old conservatism (protectionism) is now revealed.
Those of you have read the above link will by now realise that the GMC have accepted and put on record as a cause for concern a complaint, anonymous by email, about Dr Myhill delivering some piglets.

The GMC do of course have very strict procedures for reviewing complaints before putting them before the IOP.

The next IOP will be on 6 January. The High court hearing will be shortly after that.

No doubt the piglet issue will be dealt with in detail by both hearings.

So, I guess the GMC are very busy putting together their detailed arguments on this issue at the moment but I have decided to send in a few FOIA requests, a copy of one is attached below.

Other supporters may wish to find out other information from the GMC at this time.



Mr C H Robinson MA(Oxon) ACA


Information Access Team,
Registration and Resources Directorate,
General Medical Council,
3 Hardman Street,
M3 3AW

5 December 2010

Dear Sirs,


Please accept this letter as a formal request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 for the following information:

1-the total (and as detailed a breakdown as your accounting records will permit) of the external costs (such as legal and expert witness fees for all the relevant IOP Hearings and also the recent, unfortunately postponed, High Court Hearing) which the GMC has so far incurred as a result of the above case reference and

2- the total ( and as detailed a breakdown as your accounting records will allow) of the internal costs (such as man hour costs and photocopying costs etc) which the GMC has so far incurred as a result of the above case reference.

Please include all relevant costs in your reply even if they are not directly allocated to the actual cost centre associated with the case reference number above. For the avoidance of doubt, the figures which I am requesting are the total costs associated with all GMC activities concerning disciplinary matters with respect to Dr Myhill since the date that this most recent case was opened. I realise that some of these costs may be allocated elsewhere other than this case reference’s cost centre but it is the total figure of all such cost centre’s totals which this request is seeking.

Please note that with respect to point 2 above, I have a letter on my file from your office confirming that, after a previous request for such information (concerning a previous failed Fitness to Practise case against Dr Sarah Myhill), such internal cost accounting information would thereafter be kept by your office. In response to that previous request you had only been able to provide details of external costs, stating that internal cost records were not then kept but that they would be thereafter.

I am confident, therefore, that I can expect a full answer to my request.

Yours faithfully,



Senior Member
Good for her in winning the review. We need more research into the cellular energy metabolic defects in CFS and less on the XMRV wild goose chase, imo. She needs to be totally cleared and reinstated into practice, if she's not already.

Angela Kennedy

Senior Member
Essex, UK
Craig - what do you mean by piglets? I thought she delivered children (which isn't something only a doctor can do, by the way. It would be like reporting her for giving first aid or putting a plaster on a cut!)
See the link.

There was a post on support dr myhill webpage about Sarah delivering some piglets.

Someone spotted this and didn't read the detail and reported Sarah to the GMC for acting as a midwife.

The GMC received this anonymous complaint about Sarah acting as a midwife.

The link above was included in the complaint.

The GMC accepted the complaint and put it before the IOP!