Paterson refuses to attend first of 62 inquests into deaths of former patients
Jailed breast surgeon Ian Paterson was told he must give evidence at the inquests, but refused to attend the first one on Tuesday.
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Disgraced surgeon Ian Paterson has refused to attend the first of more than 60 inquests touching on the deaths of his former patients because he believes the coroner’s investigation is “biased”, the court has been told.
The breast surgeon, who is serving a 20-year prison sentence after being convicted of multiple counts of wounding in 2017, was ordered by coroner Richard Foster to appear remotely at Birmingham and Solihull Coroner’s Court on Tuesday to give evidence at the inquest of Chloe Nikitas, who died at the age of 43 in April 2008.
Paterson performed a “cleavage-sparing mastectomy” on Ms Nikitas, from Tamworth, leaving behind breast tissue, after she was diagnosed with grade two ductal carcinoma in 2002, but her cancer returned in 2005 and was terminal.
It is a disappointment to me, but more importantly to the bereaved families who have questions that need answering
Mr Foster issued a ruling on Monday saying he could “find no reason” why Paterson could not attend the inquest and give evidence remotely from prison and said it was “disappointing” to the families of the victims that he had decided not to appear.
Paterson, 66, had been accused of attempting to delay the hearings after lodging an application to have his witness summons revoked the day before the first inquest was due to start on October 10, citing health concerns, a lack of legal representation and “inadequate facilities to prepare”.
Despite the ruling by Mr Foster, who said he needed to hear Paterson’s evidence at all 62 inquests, the jailed surgeon still refused to attend Ms Nikitas’s hearing on Tuesday afternoon.
A prison supervisor told the inquest he had had a 20-minute conversation with Paterson on Tuesday morning, in which the prisoner said he felt the “coroner isn’t investigating fairly” and that the proceedings are “biased”.
He said: “(Paterson) said he is not being disrespectful, but feels he is not being listened to.”
Jonathan Jones KC, counsel to the inquests, said Mr Foster had a number of powers available to him, including imposing a fine of up to £1,000 on Paterson, a referral for possible prosecution for not appearing or a referral to the Attorney General for contempt of court.
Mr Foster said he would reserve his judgment in the hopes that Paterson would change his mind and attend future inquests.
He said: “I am disappointed that he has not complied with the Schedule 5 notice to attend today.
The appropriate course of action is to reserve my position in the hope for him to attend future inquests and I will return to this issue in due course
“It is a disappointment to me, but more importantly to the bereaved families who have questions that need answering.
“I said he should attend if only out of respect for the families of the 62 victims.
“I had given permission to appear remotely at his request and the prison are being exceptionally co-operative to assist me and that is an ongoing obligation in each of the inquests.
“I hope he will review and reconsider his position.
“I’m satisfied I can continue without his attendance.
“The appropriate course of action is to reserve my position in the hope for him to attend future inquests and I will return to this issue in due course.
“I will proceed without his participation.”
The inquest continues.