NHS managers set to make a decision this week on major hospital services for children, maternity and stroke services; Lawyers State That Any Decision Made By The NHS Clinical Commissioning Group’s Will Be Unlawful If Based On Current ‘Flawed’ Consultation

Expert Public Law specialists at Irwin Mitchell acting on behalf of a local campaign group have warned the local NHS CCG’s that any decision they make on proposed plans will be unlawful if based upon the outcome of a ‘flawed’ consultation.

The Save South Tyneside Hospital Campaign Group has sought the help of specialist lawyers at Irwin Mitchell, to challenge the legality of the decision expected to be taken by the South Tyneside CCG and NHS Sunderland CCG on 21 February 2018.

The same legal team has successfully helped other campaign groups across the country to save services such as respite centres from closure and is also working with a group to save Huddersfield A&E in Yorkshire.

Following a review by the South Tyneside NHS Foundation Trust and City Hospitals Sunderland NHS Foundation Trust, a public consultation was held into changes of three key services at South Tyneside Hospital. The consultation closed on 15 October 2017.

The three services included in the public consultation were: urgent and emergency paediatrics, stroke services and maternity and gynaecology.

The Public Law team at Irwin Mitchell has now written to the NHS Trusts and CCG’s involved, as well as South Tyneside Council, to outline the serious concerns held by the Save South Tyneside Hospital Campaign Group.

Within the letter, the law firm states concerns that ‘the consultation that closed in October was not a fair consultation’.

Yogi Amin, a partner and Head of Public law and Human Rights at Irwin Mitchell, said: 

Expert Opinion

“We were instructed by the South Tyneside Hospital Campaign Group to establish whether the decision making process has been lawful and whether there are grounds for judicial review of the decision which is to be taken by NHS managers at South Tyneside CCG and NHS Sunderland CCG on 21 February.

“Following review of the process so far, we believe that any decision that maybe taken by the two CCGs on the present state of affairs will be unlawful and we urge them not to make a decision on the future of these important services without proper consultation.

“Should the CCGs proceed to make a decision on the basis of the present state of affairs, our clients reserve the right to challenge the decision.

“We expect any final decision to be communicated promptly to the public as well as the detailed reasons for reaching any such decisions.” Yogi Amin - Partner and National Head of Public Law and Human Rights

One of the main concerns of the Campaign Group holds regarding the stroke services is that all of the three options put forward in the proposals involve combining all hyperacute stroke care at Sunderland Royal Hospital.

No options are offered which involve combining all hyperacute stroke care at South Tyneside Hospital, which the lawyers at Irwin Mitchell argue will severely disadvantage and adversely impact the residents of South Tyneside.

The Campaign Group, with their legal team at Irwin Mitchell, also highlight that the options put forward for maternity and women’s healthcare services involve retaining a consultant-led maternity unit and special baby care unit at Sunderland Royal Hospital.

However no option is offered which involves locating a similar service at South Tyneside Hospital, which the Group and lawyers again argue leaves the South Tyneside residents severely disadvantaged.

The Campaign Group and lawyers argue the same can be said for the proposals put forward regarding services for children and young people’s healthcare.

In the proposals, a 24 hour, seven days a week paediatric emergency department at Sunderland Royal Hospital is included in both options, yet one is not proposed in either option for South Tyneside Hospital.

The lawyers at Irwin Mitchell, within their letter outlining the Campaign Group’s concerns, highlight the flaw in the consultation to fail to explain anywhere within it why locating the services at South Tyneside Hospital has not been put forward as an option.

Roger Nettleship, a spokesperson for the campaign group, said: “Our stand is to safeguard the future of South Tyneside Hospital and its acute and emergency services.

“We believe that the proposed changes outlined in the public consultation will be a potential disaster for the people of South Tyneside and Sunderland. This is because access to these acute NHS services will come under pressure by the closure of the services in South Tyneside. Under the current plans many vulnerable people will have to travel many miles, often during emergencies, to access specialist hospital care or to see loved ones in hospital.

“The aim of this plan is likely to leave people in South Tyneside with essentially a rehabilitation hospital, and everyone needing acute health care will have to travel to Sunderland or Newcastle.

“We believe this fundamentally isn’t fair and will impact on vulnerable local people the most. We are crowd funding for support in our campaign. You can support us by visiting www.crowdjustice.com/case/save-south-tyneside-hospital/.”

The Save South Tyneside Hospital Group Campaign Group is the second such group to instruct Public Law specialists at Irwin Mitchell. Earlier this year, Hands Off HRI, a group established to fight against plans to close the A&E department at Huddersfield Royal Infirmary, also instructed Irwin Mitchell in relation to a legal challenge.

Helen Smith, a Public Law specialist based at Irwin Mitchell’s Newcastle office, added: 

Expert Opinion

“Our involvement with other similar high profile challenges does provide us with strong experience in cases of this nature.

“It also highlights that the concerns over good local access to public health services in the North East are not isolated only to this campaign group. There is a growing trend across the country of people who are beginning to feel worried about losing their specialist local NHS services.” Helen Smith - Partner

Read more about Irwin Mitchell's expertise in public law claims.