Press: How the media hounded a psychiatrist
Authors: Raj Persaud
Journal: BMJ (2002)

It is every doctor's worse nightmare—finding yourself on the front pages of national newspapers universally condemned for a blunder that led to the death of an 8 year old girl. Such was the recent fate of consultant psychiatrist Anthony Farrington.

Among coverage of the conviction of Roy Whiting for the murder of Sarah Payne was a headline on the front page of the Daily Mail of 13 December that howled “Psychiatrist who said killer was not a paedophile.” Inside was a half page photograph of Farrington alongside the banner “Psychiatrist who told a judge that Whiting was no paedophile.” On 15 December Daily Mail columnist Simon Heffer declared that the doctor ought to have the death of Sarah Payne on his conscience.

The media storm that broke over Farrington's head hinged on the press reports that he had declared Roy Whiting “had no paedophile tendencies” in an earlier case five years ago. Then Whiting had abducted a 9 year old at knifepoint, tied her up, and indecently assaulted her. Farrington's conclusion, it appeared to the media, had contributed to Whiting receiving lenient treatment from the court, resulting in him serving only two and a half years in jail. It appeared clear cut that he had been freed to commit Sarah Payne's murder.


Farrington told me that since August, as the Sarah Payne case continued, practically every national newspaper, and quite a few local ones, approached him demanding interviews, frequently doorstepping him with photographers. More disturbing still, they often threatened him in a veiled fashion that if he didn't speak to them about his report, things would be much worse for him. One of the reporters' favourite tactics was to hint that other papers were preparing a major hatchet job on him, so it would be in his interest to confide and give them an exclusive. 



DAILY MAIL


The problem for the former medical director and school governor was that he was bound by various legal strictures that prevented him discussing his confidential five year old report, which was not permitted to be in the public domain. Furthermore, if he had broken confidentiality and discussed it, there was a strong possibility that it would have prejudiced the possibility of a fair trial for Whiting, which was then ongoing.

As a result of his silence, all the newspapers had to print were quotations of what Whiting's defence barrister had said about Farrington's report during the first case. Reporters gleefully descended on the phrase “did not have paedophile tendencies,” attributed to Dr Farrington. In fact the psychiatrist had never said this; instead it was an interpretation put on the report by the then defence barrister, Philip Marshall, which ended up in the court transcripts. Instead Dr Farrington had indicated in his report that Whiting did not meet the official diagnostic criteria for paedophilia. He had made this statement specifically to assist the court in making a decision over whether a hospital order could be considered. It was not made with the general public or the press in mind, as they don't have access to court reports unless they have been read out in entirety in court.

Farrington feels that the lawyers in the first case twisted his opinions to suit their defence, and now he has been blamed for inferences which were not even his. He points out that he predicted in his report that Whiting presented a strong risk of reoffending and in fact the judge in the Sarah Payne case commented on how right the psychiatrist had been in his initial assessment. But the press largely ignored this in its desperate attempt to find a scapegoat for the tragic murder of Sarah.

Farrington feels strongly that there needs to be more support from professional organisations for doctors caught in the middle of this kind of maelstrom. He found his defence union useful—particularly for its advice to allow the press to photograph him, as otherwise skulking reporters would simply sneak a shot that would have merely looked worse. But in the light of his experiences, he believes that the medical profession now desperately needs its own public relations expert—someone who could have assisted him in organising a private press briefing to explain the complexities of the case.