• FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE •
11th August 2026 @ 1200
“A Culture of Systemic Obfuscation”: Information Commissioner Orders NHS Tayside to Release Hidden Eljamel Governance Documents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
- Vindication for Harmed Patients: The Scottish Information Commissioner (SIC) issues Decision Notice 200/2026, ruling that NHS Tayside failed to comply with freedom of information law regarding the 2019 Tracey Gillies review into disgraced neurosurgeon Sam Eljamel.
- Unlawful Redactions Exposed: The Commissioner found that NHS Tayside inappropriately weaponised third-party personal data exemptions to withhold information that should have been disclosed or properly anonymised.
- Reviewer on the Stand: As NHS Lothian’s Tracey Gillies — author of the 2019 review — is confirmed on the Public Inquiry witness list, the ruling reveals that the supporting evidence behind her report was unlawfully suppressed by NHS Tayside for over three years.
- Exposing Corporate Buffering Tactics: As the Public Inquiry publishes its Section 1 witness list — dominated by current executives while historical decision-makers are conspicuously absent — the ruling proves current leadership is actively obstructing transparency today while preparing to claim “that was then, this is now.”
- Ordered to Search and Disclose: NHS Tayside has been given six weeks to release previously withheld records and conduct fresh searches for missing governance documentation.
- Justice Delayed: The Patients’ Action Group (PAG) highlights that it has taken over three years of institutional resistance and regulatory delay to extract basic truth from a health board that continually fails the test of candour.
RELEASE
The Patients’ Action Group (PAG) representing harmed former patients of neurosurgeon Sam Eljamel has welcomed a landmark ruling by the Scottish Information Commissioner (SIC). Decision Notice 200/2026 confirms that NHS Tayside breached freedom of information legislation by unlawfully withholding key documents, applying excessive redactions, and failing to undertake adequate searches regarding internal reviews into Eljamel’s practice.
The appeal was brought by PAG campaigner and former patient Alan Ogilvie following a Freedom of Information (FOI) request submitted to NHS Tayside in March 2023. The request sought the full documentation surrounding the April 2019 review authored by Dr Tracey Gillies, Executive Medical Director of NHS Lothian, which examined NHS Tayside’s handling of the Eljamel investigation.
In a decision issued on the 3rd of August 2026, the Information Commissioner found that NHS Tayside:
- Inappropriately withheld information under Section 38(1)(b) (third-party personal data) of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA) when data could have been disclosed in redacted or summary form without compromising legitimate privacy.
- Failed to fulfil its statutory duty to search for information and failed in its duty to provide reasonable advice and assistance under Section 15(1) of FOISA.
- Must now issue a revised review outcome to the applicant, disclose the specified information, and conduct proper searches for missing records within six weeks.
Statement from Alan Ogilvie, FOI Requestor and Patients’ Action Group Spokesperson:
“This ruling by the Information Commissioner is a clear vindication for patients who have spent years fighting against NHS Tayside’s wall of secrecy. For over three years, NHS Tayside has used GDPR and data protection rules not as a legitimate legal shield, but as a sword to block public accountability and conceal what senior executives knew about Eljamel — and precisely when they knew it.
“Tracey Gillies’ 2019 review was meant to examine whether NHS Tayside acted reasonably, timely, and appropriately. Yet, when patients asked to see the supporting documents, the board handed us heavily blacked-out pages and claimed key information could not be released. The Commissioner has now called out this practice for what it is: an unlawful failure to comply with FOI law.
“Looking at the Inquiry’s newly published timetable for Section 1 hearings, it is telling that the witness list includes NHS Lothian’s Tracey Gillies herself — author of the 2019 review that claimed Tayside acted appropriately — alongside current executives like Chief Executive Nicky Connor, Executive Medical Director Dr James Cotton, Executive Nurse Director Simon Dunn, and Director of People and Culture Elaine Watson. Where are the historical Tayside decision-makers who actually oversaw Eljamel?’
“As Tracey Gillies prepares to take the stand to defend her ‘desktop review’, she does so knowing the Information Commissioner has ruled that the background files, spreadsheets, and emails supporting her report were unlawfully hidden from the public by NHS Tayside. Fielding current officers who were not in post at the time creates a convenient corporate buffer to argue, ‘Those mistakes were made long ago.’ This decision notice utterly demolishes that defence. From the destruction of 40 vital theatre logbooks in July 2025 despite an active preservation order, to unlawfully blocking public access to internal governance reviews, this current board is actively continuing the cover-up in real time.”
Strategic Implications for the Upcoming Public Inquiry Hearings
The timing of Decision Notice 200/2026 directly undermines NHS Tayside’s position as the Public Inquiry enters Section 1 hearings. By presenting current board members alongside external reviewer Tracey Gillies to give evidence, NHS Tayside risks insulating the historical executive leadership responsible for the scandal while hiding behind modern policy updates.
However, the Information Commissioner’s ruling demonstrates that failures of candour are not historic artifacts. The decision details an ongoing pattern of behaviour by NHS Tayside, where requests for crucial evidence — including risk management minutes, adverse event tracking, and communications with the General Medical Council — continue to be met with unlawful redactions, prolonged delays, and inadequate record searches overseen by the current administration.
PAG maintains that true healing and systemic reform cannot occur while NHS Tayside continues to default to corporate self-preservation over patient safety, data protection, and statutory transparency.
Notes to Editors:
About the Patients’ Action Group: 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.
About Decision Notice 200/2026: Case Ref 202301454 was issued by the Scottish Information Commissioner on the 3rd of August 2026. The decision relates to FOI request reference IGTFOISA12463 made to Tayside Health Board regarding the “Review of NHS Tayside’s Investigation of Professor Eljamel” (the Gillies Report, April 2019).
Statutory Requirement: NHS Tayside has been ordered by the Commissioner to take remedial action and provide a revised review response to the applicant within six weeks of the decision notice.
Key Examples of NHS Tayside Obfuscation in Decision Notice 200/2026:
Specific illustrations of NHS Tayside’s obstructive compliance practices where Decision Notice 200/2026 highlights several clear examples of institutional resistance and procedural failure:
- Case 1: The “Missing” Executive Email Chains (Item 12)
- Context: The 2019 Gillies Report explicitly refers to email correspondence between Associate Medical Director Mr Mowle and Professor Eljamel regarding clinical concerns.
- Tayside’s Conduct: NHS Tayside claimed these emails could not be located or were not held.
- Commissioner’s Finding: The Commissioner ruled that NHS Tayside failed to satisfy its statutory requirement to undertake reasonable and thorough searches before claiming information was not held, ordering fresh searches across IT systems and backups.
- Case 2: Weaponising Privacy Rules to Conceal Governance Records (Items 13 & 14)
- Context: Requests for documentation relating to Eljamel’s early retirement application, post-review meeting minutes, and internal action plans.
- Tayside’s Conduct: NHS Tayside applied blanket redactions under Section 38(1)(b) (third-party personal data) across whole pages, blocking out administrative decisions, officer roles, and organizational timelines.
- Commissioner’s Finding: The Commissioner condemned the improper application of privacy exemptions to public administrative data. He noted that NHS Tayside should have released the records with appropriate anonymisation rather than suppressing entire governance documents.
- Case 3: Failure to Provide Anonymised Patient Safety Summaries (Items 3 & 10)
- Context: Requests for patient recall spreadsheets and Datix adverse event tracking logs provided directly to reviewer Dr Tracey Gillies.
- Tayside’s Conduct: NHS Tayside issued blanket refusals, hiding behind unredacted patient confidentiality without attempting to assist the applicant.
- Commissioner’s Finding: The Commissioner found NHS Tayside in breach of Section 15(1) (Duty to advise and assist) for failing to engage with the applicant to explain how statistical, anonymised, or redacted summaries could be produced to satisfy public scrutiny while protecting individual patient identities.
- Case 4: Erasing Senior Executive Identities vs Legitimate Junior Staff Privacy
- Context: NHS Tayside redacted the names, titles, and signatures of all personnel mentioned across internal reports and correspondence.
- Tayside’s Conduct: The health board treated senior executive decision-makers identically to junior administrative staff, claiming all employee names were exempt under Section 38(1)(b) as personal data.
- Commissioner’s Finding: The Commissioner explicitly drew a line between senior officials and junior employees. He ruled that senior executives, clinical directors, and board leaders acting in their official capacity have a significantly lower expectation of privacy; therefore, the public interest in scrutiny heavily outweighs their data protection rights. Redacting senior leaders’ names was unlawful.
- Case 5: Misusing Eljamel’s “Privacy Rights” to Shield Public Scrutiny
- Context: Documentation concerning Professor Eljamel’s application for early retirement and internal management of his clinical practice.
- Tayside’s Conduct: NHS Tayside argued that Eljamel’s retirement applications and correspondence constituted his private personal data and could not be disclosed.
- Commissioner’s Finding: The Commissioner rejected NHS Tayside’s attempt to hide Eljamel’s exit behind data privacy laws. Given the severity of patient harm, Eljamel’s senior status, and the intense public interest, the Commissioner determined that any expectation of privacy regarding his official exit and oversight was far outweighed by the imperative for public accountability.
––––––– ENDS –––––––––
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