• FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE •
15th December 2025 @ 1600
“Gross Negligence or Malice”: Patients’ Action Group Condemns Shocking Destruction of Evidence by NHS Tayside — and Calls for Fairness and Evidence-Based Justice
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
- Evidence Destruction: NHS Tayside admits destroying 40 theatre logbooks (1995–2013) in July 2025, despite a preservation order.
- Legal Ambiguity: PAG condemns Tayside’s “obtuse” plan for legal support that risks silencing whistleblowers.
- Inquiry Delays: Hearings delayed due to government bureaucracy.
- Compensation: PAG clarifies its nuanced stance: fair redress based on evidence, distancing itself from “blanket compensation” campaigns.
EDINBURGH – The Patients’ Action Group (PAG), representing many former patients of disgraced neurosurgeon Sam Eljamel, has responded with outrage to revelations emerging from the Ejamel Inquiry’s Opening Statements hearings held in Edinburgh recently (26th & 27th November).
While the Group welcomes the forensic and robust approach taken by Counsel to the Inquiry, Jamie Dawson KC, the hearings were overshadowed by a “bombshell” admission from NHS Tayside regarding the destruction of vital evidence as recently as July 2025.
Key Concerns and Reactions – Opening Statements hearings
1. The Destruction of Theatre Logbooks (July 2025)
In a written admission that has stunned the patient group, NHS Tayside confirmed that approximately 40 hard-copy theatre logbooks, covering the critical period of 1995–2013, were destroyed by staff on 24 July 2025.
- PAG View: This destruction occurred months after the Inquiry had issued a preservation of documents order. NHS Tayside’s claim that staff “did not know the connection” to Eljamel is implausible given the high profile of this scandal. As our Lead Counsel Joanna Cherry KC stated, this suggests either “gross negligence or possible malice.” It fundamentally undermines NHS Tayside’s claim that they are now a “learning organisation” and suggests that a culture of incompetence, or cover-up, persists today.
- Vital Evidence Lost: Based on standard surgical practice and guidelines from bodies such as the Royal College of Surgeons, we speculate these logbooks may have contained critical, independent verification of procedures. This could include:
- Precise Date and Time: Confirming exactly when surgeries took place.
- Surgeon Identity: Definitive record of the primary surgeon and any assisting surgeons or trainees. This is crucial for establishing who actually performed the operation.
- Procedure Details: A specific description of the operation performed.
- Implants/Prostheses: Details of any devices implanted (type, size, serial number), relevant to concerns about unproven or experimental devices.
- Complications: Any immediate intra-operative complications or issues noted.
- Staff Presence: Names of the anaesthetist and other theatre staff present.
- Action: We demand that the Inquiry summons the Chief Executive and senior management to explain under oath how this was allowed to happen.
2. “Obtuse” Stance on Legal Support for Staff
The hearings exposed NHS Tayside’s attempt to offer vague “legal support” to current and former employees via their own Central Legal Office, rather than independent representation.
- PAG View: We agree with Jamie Dawson KC’s critique that this proposal was legally ambiguous and “not contemplated by the rules.” It appears to be a tactical manoeuvre to keep witnesses “close” to the Board while avoiding corporate liability for their actions. We welcome the Inquiry’s insistence that this ambiguity be resolved to ensure witnesses and whistleblowers can speak freely without fear or conflict of interest.
3. Delays Caused by Government Bureaucracy
The Inquiry confirmed that evidential hearings have been pushed back from February 2026 to April 2026, with vital patient hearings delayed until September 2026.
- PAG View: While we accept the need for thoroughness, it is deeply frustrating that these delays are explicitly attributed to Scottish Government recruitment bureaucracy and funding delays for the Independent Clinical Review (ICR). Patients have been fighting for a decade; administrative friction at government level should not be adding to their trauma.
4. The “December 2013” Defence
The Scottish Ministers’ opening statement claimed they were only formally notified of Eljamel’s suspension in December 2013.
- PAG View: We view this as a strategic attempt to “draw a line” and absolve the Government of responsibility for the years of malpractice and lack of oversight prior to that date. We expect the Inquiry to rigorously test what Ministers should have known before 2013 regarding patient safety in Tayside. It is incredible to think that the ministers at the time, who were supposed to have oversight on the workings of the NHS health boards did not know anything before 2013 – it either shows that NHS Tayside failed to correctly inform them or gross negligence on the ministers’ part.
Comments from the Action Group
Alan Ogilvie, Spokesperson for the Patients’ Action Group, said:
“We walked into these hearings hoping for a start to the healing process. Instead, we were hit with the revelation that NHS Tayside destroyed vital theatre logbooks just four months ago.
“For years, we have been told that lessons have been learned and systems have changed. Yet, in July 2025 — with a Public Inquiry underway and preservation orders in place — evidence that could have explained what happened to us was shredded. Whether this was incompetence or a cover-up, it proves that the culture at NHS Tayside has not changed enough.
“We are grateful to Jamie Dawson KC for his forensic dismantling of the excuses offered by the institutions. His challenge to NHS Tayside regarding their ambiguous legal support plans showed that this Inquiry will not be a tick-box exercise.”
––––––––––––––––
Clarification on Compensation and Time-Bar
Following media coverage on 3rd of December, the Patients’ Action Group wishes to clarify its nuanced position regarding compensation and legal time-bars.
We note the statement from Circle Health Group (owners of the former Fernbrae Hospital assets) to the BBC that claims will be “considered on a case-by-case basis.” The reported statement from the Scottish Government also urged NHS Tayside to consider “fairly and on a case-by-case basis” whether they would use time-bar as a defence. This is consistent with the legal advice received by the PAG in April 2023. We have never expected a blanket lifting of the time-bar. Each patient’s situation is unique, and claims must be evidence-based.
Our Position on “Blanket Compensation”:
- Fairness for the Public: We believe that the public, whose money would be spent in compensation of NHS patients, have no appetite for blanket compensation without evidence that the patient was treated and harmed. Fairness dictates that the use of public money for patients must be proportional to a full understanding of the need. The Infected Blood Inquiry, for example, did offer a pre-Public Inquiry compensation scheme because it was easier to identify if a transfusion of potentially infected blood had occurred first. In our case, the specific harm must be established by the inquiries underway.
- Fairness for Patients: Within the harmed patient group it requires that compensation is also seen to be fair and proportional. How does one equate the death of a patient, against another patient who has had minor impediments but was lied to? It wouldn’t be fair to offer blanket compensation – it requires the various inquiries to proceed before compensation guidance can be understood.
- Evidence First: We believe that compensation is a consequence of confirmed failings. The Police investigation, the Public Inquiry and the Independent Clinical Review (ICR) must first establish the facts of what happened to each patient.
- No “Money Grab”: Our campaign has always been about truth, accountability, and patient safety. We are not campaigning for a “cash grab” but for the justice that has been denied to us for over a decade. Once the inquiries have established the facts, fair redress should follow for those harmed, based on the specific evidence of their case.
- Distinction from Other Campaigners: We wish to make it clear that Jules Rose has not been a member of the Patients’ Action Group since late 2024 and does not speak for us. We strongly disagree with her recent protests, such as ‘The Grinch’ demonstration on the 3rd of December. The story of The Grinch is ultimately one of redemption; the protest likened Eljamel to this character, it wrongly implies a path to redemption is possible for him. We believe it is the institutions — NHS Tayside, NHS Health Improvement Scotland, General Medical Council, Royal College of Surgeons, Health and Safety Executive, University of Dundee, and the Scottish Government — that must seek to redeem themselves through transparency and accountability. Furthermore, using a children’s storybook character seems to trivialise the grave and life-altering suffering of patients, risking re-traumatisation and distracting from the serious work of the Police Investigation, the Independent Clinical Review, and the Public Inquiry.
Comments from the Action Group
Alan Ogilvie, Spokesperson for the Patients’ Action Group, said:
“Regarding compensation, we must be clear: the Patients’ Action Group’s fight is for the truth. We are not demanding blank cheques. We are demanding that the Police investigation, the Independent Clinical Reviews, and the Public Inquiry conduct their work without compromise or constraint: uncover the evidence, and identify exactly who was harmed and how. Only then can proper, fair redress be determined for each individual. We will not be distracted by campaigns that put money before answers.”
––––––––––––––––
We believe the only way:
- to achieve transparent, unbiased, and honest answers,
- to have essential learning and enact real change,
- to hold to account those responsible,
- to help and support those patients living with what happened,
- to rebuild public trust in our healthcare organisations to care for us all,
…is by ensuring this is a thorough, fearless, and independent Public Inquiry.
We must get to the truth to safeguard all patients who rely on healthcare in Scotland. We will continue to demand a Public Inquiry that accomplishes these goals. We will not give up.
– ENDS –
Contact:
Email: [email protected]
Website: https://eljamelinquiry.org.uk
X / Twitter: @EljamelInquiry
Threads: @EljamelInqOrg
Bluesky: @eljamelinquiry.org.uk
Notes to Editors:
The Patients’ Action Group is a group of former patients of neurosurgeon Sam Eljamel who have suffered significant harm. The group was formed in December 2022 to campaign for a full, independent public inquiry into the systemic failures at NHS Tayside and across Scottish healthcare governance that allowed this harm to occur.