piBlawg

the personal injury and clinical negligence blog

A collaboration between Rebmark Legal Solutions and 1 Chancery Lane

Daniel v St George's Healthcare NHS Trust & London Ambulance Service: a human rights cautionary tale?

  Daniel v St George’s Healthcare NHS Trust  and London Ambulance Service [2016] EWHC 23 (QB) Introduction Edward Bishop QC has successfully defended an NHS trust and the London Ambulance Service against claims under the Human Rights Act 1998 brought by the foster family of a man who died of a heart attack in Wandsworth Prison.  The judgment deals with the legal test for liability, causation and victim status.     The central allegation was that there was culpable delay in the attendance of paramedics caused by nursing error and an insufficiently flexible ambulance triage system.  The judge rejected both allegations on the facts and clarified the law on causation in cases of death in custody from natural causes.  She also dealt with “victim status” under the HRA, ruling that the deceased’s foster mother was entitled to bring a claim but his “foster brother” was not. Background James Best (“JB”) was a prisoner on remand at Her Majesty’s Prison (HMP) Wandsworth when he died from natural causes on 8 September 2011. He suffered a myocardial infarction (a heart attack), as a result of a ruptured plaque in the coronary artery, which caused cardiac arrest and death. He was only 37. He had no previous history of heart disease and it is likely that the plaque was ruptured by over-exertion in the prison gym. The First Defendant (“St George’s”) is a National Health Service (“NHS”) Trust responsible for the provision of primary health care within HMP Wandsworth. Doctors and nurses employed by the First Defendant in the Department of Primary Care at HMP Wandsworth tried unsuccessfully to save JB’s life on the day of his death. The Second Defendant (“the LAS”) is a NHS Trust responsible for the provision of ambulances within the London area. HMP Wandsworth is within its catchment area. On 8 September 2011, an emergency call for an ambulance for JB was made, but he was dead by the time the ambulance arrived. The central allegations were that the nurse who attended on JB in his cell failed to request an ambulance quickly enough, and further that there was unnecessary and unreasonable delay in the dispatch of an ambulance by the LAS. The Claimants had a close relationship with JB which began when the First Claimant fostered JB for 3 years when he was a teenager, between 1988 and 1991. The Second Claimant is the First Claimant’s biological son, and described JB as his foster brother. The Claimants have brought their claim for declarations and damages under the Human Rights Act 1998 (“HRA 1998”), alleging that the First and Second Defendants, as public authorities, acted in breach of Articles 2 and 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”). Violation of Articles 2 and 3 Mrs Justice Lang set out the appropriate legal test to be applied when considering whether or not there had been a breach. She reiterated the guidance: “I remind myself that the test to be applied is whether the Defendants did “all that could reasonably be expected of them to avoid a real and immediate risk to life of which they have or ought to have knowledge” (Osman at [116]). In Rabone, Lord Dyson considered that an “immediate” risk was one which “present and continuing” (at [39]). He added, at [43]:   “The standard required for the performance of the operational duty is one of reasonableness. This brings in “consideration of the circumstances of the case, the ease or difficulty of taking precautions and the resources available”; per Lord Carswell In re Officer L [2007] 1 WLR 2135 , para 21.   The ECtHR and the domestic courts have emphasised that the operational duty must not be interpreted in a way “which imposes an impossible or disproportionate burden on the authorities” (Osman at [116])”   On causation, and having considered the evidence, the test was: “the legal test of causation is whether there was a failure to take reasonably available measures which could have had a “real prospect of altering the outcome”. Put another way, the Claimants have to establish that JB “lost a substantial chance of avoiding the outcome”.”   The court heard extensive evidence, not just from the actual persons involved in the immediate aftermath, but also from medical experts who gave evidence on the chances of survival following such a heart attack. Careful consideration was given to transcripts of the 999 call-outs, and the exact timing of those calls. The criteria and policy of the ambulance service was scrutinised.   Mrs Justice Lang was emphatic in her dismissal of the claims of breach. She did not consider that the “Claimants have succeeded in establishing, on the balance of probabilities, that, even if [the nurse at the prison] had called an ambulance earlier, or LAS had dispatched an ambulance sooner, that there would have been a “real prospect of altering the outcome” or that JB “lost a substantial chance of avoiding the outcome”.   As for the claims brought under Article 3, the Judge said: “The claim under Article 3 was unarguable, in my view. [the prison nurse] acted promptly, reasonably and professionally and did all she could to save JB’s life. There was no unreasonable delay in calling an ambulance. The LAS handled the emergency call in accordance with their procedures which were required to ensure that a limited resource of emergency vehicles and personnel were allocated fairly within the community according to priority need. ” It certainly did not amount to “inhuman and degrading treatment”.   Victim status   Both Claimants brought claims alleging that they were “indirect victims”. Mrs Justice Lang considered the law on victim status, and set out the relevant test:   “In my judgment, the likely approach of the ECtHR in determining the status of the Claimants in this case would be to consider all the facts and circumstances to assess: ·       1. the nature of the legal/family relationship between the Claimants and JB; ·       2. the nature of the personal ties between the Claimants and JB; ·       3. the extent to which the alleged violations of the Convention (1) affected them personally and (2) caused them to suffer; ·       4. involvement in the proceedings arising out of JB’s death.”   On applying that criteria, she was satisfied that the first Claimant was a indirect victim as she had been JB’s foster mother for three years, leading to a longstanding parent-child relationship. JB had no other family of his own, and shortly before his death referred to himself as the first Claimant’s “third son”. Not only this, but the first Claimant had clearly suffered from acute distress following JB’s demise, and had been extremely active in the aftermath of his death.   However, the second Claimant was found not be an indirect victim. The status of “foster brother” is not recognised in UK domestic law or in ECtHR case law. There can be no question that the second Claimant suffered hugely from the loss of a close friend; but this alone is not a sufficient basis on which to found a claim.   The claims were dismissed.

Holding out for the Heroism Bill

The Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Bill (dubbed by some the “Sarah Bill”) is being returned to the House of Commons, with amendments, following its final reading in the House of Lords on 6 January 2015. The much-maligned and exceptionally brief Bill seeks to introduce a requirement that courts deciding negligence and/or breach of statutory duty cases and in determining the standard of care give consideration to whether the activity or omission complained of was for the benefit of society, whether the person carrying out the activity demonstrated a “predominantly responsible approach” in protecting a person’s safety or other interests and whether (in emergency situations) the person intervened “heroically”.   Clause 4 in particular makes clear that the Bill is aimed predominantly at personal injury cases, although it will apply to non-personal injury cases. Critics of the Bill have suggested that it is largely being promoted by the Government to further protect employers and to appease the insurance industry. Indeed, the Bill has been criticised on several grounds, mostly as being a mere publicity stunt by the Government but also for its vagueness. The Sarah Bill is designed to afford greater protection to volunteers and employers who might otherwise be deterred from performing worthwhile deeds or organising events due to the risk of finding themselves on the end of a negligence claim. The Bill survived an attempt in December 2014 at the Second Reading to remove most of its (four) clauses. At the Third Reading, clause 3 (the social responsibility clause) was amended such that (in assessing the standard of care) the individual’s approach towards protecting the safety and interest of others must have been “predominantly”, rather “generally”, responsible. Clause 4 was also amended, removing the words “and without regard to the person’s own safety or other interests” to make clear that the clause applies equally to those cases where the person (sorry, hero(ine)) assess  the risks to their own safety or other interests before intervening (as well as those where they did not assess the risks). The amended Bill will be considered by the House of Commons on 2 February 2015. If the Bill is passed, there are potentially difficult questions for the judges on the ground to answer. The Bill is somewhat unhelpfully brief and uses terms which are somewhat “foreign”. The first difficulty is going to be determining when a defendant’s action was “for the benefit of society or any of its members.” The clause has a potentially enormous scope. Employers, particularly in the public sector, are likely going to try to fit themselves under this clause. But even if they do, you may well ask, so what? It is only a factor for the judge to consider and is by no means a defence. There is no indication of what weight, if any, judges will place on this factor. Judges will also have to decide on what is meant under clause 3 by a “predominantly responsible approach” in protecting the safety or other interests of others. Again, the potential scope of the clause is vast. Will it apply, for instance, to all medical professionals? Will it apply to any attempt by an employer to introduce some health and safety measure? And what is the tipping point for an approach to be categorised as “predominantly responsible”? There is potential for a stream of cases on that issue alone, unless of course there is a judicial reluctance to engage with the clause and it goes the way of section 1 of the Compensation Act 2006. It is also questionable how many cases will fall under clause 4 (the heroism clause). But for those that do, what do we mean by acting “heroically”? This is an entirely foreign legal concept and is open to a sliding scale of judicial interpretation.  Are doctors acting “heroically” in emergency situations or will the clause only apply to the volunteer, have-a-go hero(ine) which the Government seems to have intended? The Bill, as is stands, is brief, vague and uses terms to which the legal world is not accustomed. Although cases might throw up interesting questions on how to interpret the Bill, one has to wonder whether it will all be for nought. Chris Grayling MP himself has said, "The bill will not change this overarching legal framework, but it will direct the courts to consider particular factors when considering whether the defendant took reasonable care." If judges do not engage with it or consideration of these particulars factors makes no material difference in practice, will defendants even bother to try to fit their cases under one of the clauses? Much like section 1 of the Compensation Act 2006, it will be judicial appetite that determines how effective the Bill’s clauses become. Given the criticism of the Bill in judicial circles, do not expect that appetite to be very strong.  

Handle with Care!

  “Handle with Care” will be best known to fans of the Traveling Wilburys as the first track on the group’s 1988 album, “Traveling Wilburys Vol.1”. It is also the key message of the fifth annual “State of Care” report by the Care Quality Commission (CQC) issued on 17 October 2014.   https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/364440/CQC_StateOfSocial_2014.pdf   The report which looks at 40,000 services and provides a useful, if rather worrying, insight into the state of care in England concludes that the variation in the overall quality of care is unacceptably wide.   The report covers adult social care, hospitals, mental health care and community health services and primary medical services and integrated care.   The CQC found some instances of “outstanding” care and it also rated many other services as “good”. However, it also found many services that are “inadequate” or “require improvement”.   As a result of the latter, people are being failed by the “numerous” hospitals, care homes and GP practices which are unable to meet the standards achieved by other services.   The CQC found many instances where the particular problem has existed for years. However, the CQC makes clear this is not an excuse. In fact it is “quite the opposite”.   More worryingly, the CQC concludes that too many service providers have still not got to grips with the “basics of safety”.   The CQC is now “calling time on this unacceptable lottery”.   The challenge to every health and care provider is to deliver the “high standards of care that each person has a right to expect”.   Or, as Roy Orbison and Bob Dylan sang in the bridge to the 1988 track,   “Won't you show me that you really care?”

Legislating for "Statutory Common Sense" and Personal Injury Litigation?

A court considering a claim in negligence or breach of statutory duty may, in determining whether the defendant should have taken particular steps to meet a standard of care (whether by taking precautions against a risk or otherwise), have regard to whether a requirement to take those steps might— (a) prevent a desirable activity from being undertaken at all, to a particular extent or in a particular way, or (b) discourage persons from undertaking functions in connection with a desirable activity. Please excuse the cumbersome language. This is section 2 of the Compensation Act 2006 – a statutory provision which is rather underused by defendant lawyers (and apparently largely unknown to judges). However, perhaps this is not without good reason. Whilst the provision’s introduction was fêted as being a powerful weapon in the hand of the defendant and judge in the fight against the rising tide of personal injury litigation seen since the late-1990s, it clearly has not had much of an effect. Part of the reason for this may well be the slightly vague nature of the terms of the provision: firstly the word “may” instead of “must”; and the obvious subjectivity of the interpretation of the word “desirable”.   This is something of a worry to the current administration, at least following the recent local and European Elections. Concern more widely about ‘health and safety’ (particularly amongst older and more Euro-sceptical sections of the electorate, whose votes may no longer be a safe bet for the current political party in power) appears to have been taken more seriously.   It has recently been widely reported that the Lord Chancellor wants an inclusion in the Queen’s Speech setting out the Government’s commitment to statutory reform to end any ‘chilling effect’ that any such concerns may engender. The BBC reports that the Ministry of Justice “wants to force judges to give weight to three factors in cases where people do end up facing litigation: If the person was doing something "for the benefit of society", such as clearing snow If they were acting in a "generally responsible way" If they stepped in to help in an emergency” It is reported that the MoJ wishes to "put the law more clearly on the side of employers" when something goes wrong at work through no fault of their own”, and that  the “law change would protect small business owners who take a "responsible approach to safety training and procedures" from the challenges of "irresponsible employees". The Lord Chancellor is quotes as suggesting that he would "want a society where common sense is the order of the day, and I believe this measure will help us get there."   So ‘watch this space’ as to whether/how this may change the nature of personal injury litigation…

Litigants in Person, the Judges and You!

      According to the government's own figures, 623,000 of the 1,000,000 people who previously received public funding each year ceased to be eligible for such assistance when the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act (LASPO) 2012 came into force on 1 April 2013.   On 5 July 2013 the Judicial Working Group on Litigants in Person (LIPs) published its report on how the judiciary proposes to deal with the massive increase in LIPs in courts and tribunals. It merits careful reading by all practitioners.    www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Reports/lip_2013.pdf    The challenges are immense and will be further increased by the impending rise in the financial limit for the small claims track from £5,000 to £10,000. A doubling of this limit will inevitably mean more cases fall within the small claims track where public funding is not available. As for alternative sources of assistance, the Citizens Advice Bureau estimates that local advice and community based services will lose over 77% of their public funding.    In 2012, District Judge Richard Chapman, the immediate past president of the Association of Her Majesty’s District Judges observed that already:   “Judges like me are spending more and more of our time having to deal with litigants who simply do not know the law, have never heard of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 or the Family Procedure Rules 2010 and have breached most of the case management directions”.    The report recommends that the Ministry of Justice and Her Majesty’s Court and Tribunal Service should devote the necessary time and resources to producing, with judicial involvement, appropriate materials, including audio-visual materials, to inform LIPs what is required of them and what they can expect when they go to court as well as reviewing the information that is currently publically accessible on the various judicial websites – see [2.8] and [3.49-3.52] of the report.   The Judicial College should also urgently assess the  feasibility of providing training on LIPs –  a sort of “Quick Lit” course for judges – together with developing a  “litigants in person toolkit” utilising the existing judicial guidance – see [2.9] and [4.9-4.19] of the report.   More far reaching proposals include:   1.      The inclusion in the CPR of a dedicated rule which makes specific modifications to other rules where one or more of the parties to proceedings is a litigant in person.  2.      The introduction of a power into Rule 3.1 CPR to permit the court to direct, where at least one party is an LIP, that proceedings should be conducted as a more inquisitorial form of process.  3.      The introduction of a specific general practice direction or new rule in the CPR to address, without creating a fully inquisitorial form of procedure, the needs of  LIPs in obtaining access to justice whilst enabling  courts to manage cases consistently – see [2.10] and [5.11] of the report.    The stark reality is that in some courts and tribunals LIPs will be the rule rather than the exception. This will inevitably slow down and drive up the cost of proceedings and take up valuable judicial time. Equally inevitably, the call will surely go out from the judges to practitioners at all levels for assistance in responding to the challenges that lie ahead.   Image – www.123rf.com

“Safe sex” – Part 2

Regular readers will recall the story so far in relation to this unfortunate “on the job” injury which raises important questions about activities which can properly be said to arise out of or occur in the course of employment.    The appellant, a female public servant, sued the Australian federal government after being injured while having sex on a work trip in a motel bedroom. A glass light fitting came away from the wall above the bed as she was having sex striking her in the face and causing injuries to her nose, mouth and a tooth as well as “a consequent psychiatric injury” described as an adjustment disorder.   The appellant’s partner’s evidence was that they were “going hard” and that he did not know “if we bumped the light or it just fell off”.  He added, not unreasonably, that he was “not paying attention because we were rolling around”.   The appellant claimed compensation because her injuries were caused “during the course of her employment” as she had been instructed to travel to and spend the night in the motel in a small town in New South Wales ahead of a departmental meeting early the next day.   The respondent, Comcare, the Australian government's workplace safety body, rejected the claim on the grounds that sexual activity “was not an ordinary incident of an overnight stay like showering, sleeping or eating”. That decision was upheld by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.   However, on appeal to the Federal Court of Australia (FCA), the appellant’s counsel submitted that the accident was in truth “no different than slipping over in the shower”. In addition, “lawful sexual activity” should now be considered reasonable behaviour in a hotel room by an employee as “it's not the 1920s”.   Counsel for ComCare responded that people need to eat, sleep and attend to their personal hygiene but “you don't need to have sex”.   The judge, Nicholas J., allowed the appellant’s appeal - see PVYW v Comcare (No 2) [2012] FCA 395. The judge held that “While it is true that in determining whether an injury occurred in the course of employment, regard must always be had to the general nature, terms and circumstances of the applicant’s employment, there was nothing of that description in the present case which could justify a finding that the interval or interlude was interrupted by the applicant’s lawful sexual activity” – see [54] of the judgment.   Comcare appealed to the full court of the FCA which on 13 December 2012 dismissed its appeal – see Comcare v PVYW [2012] FCAFC 181.   In a carefully reasoned judgment the full court, presided over by Keane CJ., rejected Comcare’s essential submission that “an injured employee who claims to have been injured during an interval or interlude between periods of actual work must show both that the injury occurred at a place he or she was induced or encouraged by the employer to be and that the activity from which the injury arose was induced or encouraged by the employer, or was implicitly accepted”.   The court held that that the potential conditions for liability were not conjunctive in the sense that an activity test should be super-imposed on a place test. There was no combined or two-stage test. There was a single test which may be satisfied in either one of two ways. Further, the concept of, here, “a frolic of her own” was one which applies to wrongful acts. The court also made clear that “the views of the respondent’s employer about the respondent’s (lawful) activities were irrelevant, whether or not those views (if sought) may have reflected disapproval or indifference” – see [50] – [55] of the judgment.   This must be right. Why should being injured whilst having sex be any different to the claimant being injured whilst working out on one of the exercise bicycles or cross trainers in the motel’s gym provided that the injury occurred within an overall period or episode of work and negligence can be shown. Further, why should the employer approve when and how an employee has sex any more than where she chooses to have her breakfast?   Comcare is considering an appeal to the High Court, Australia's highest legal tribunal. In the meantime, common sense has prevailed, the judgment provides useful guidance on the scope of workplace injuries and I, for one, will in future double check the structural integrity of motel light fittings.  

A catastrophic getaway

  Mr O’Brien and his nephew Mr Joyce must be amongst the most incompetent thieves around. They stole a ladder from the front garden of a house and put it into the back of the van but could not close the door. Mr O’Brien drove the van off to make a speedy getaway whilst Mr Joyce hung onto the back of the van, standing on a footplate with the ladder under or over his right arm. He was holding onto the door or roof whilst a door was flapping around. The van lurched around a bend without reducing speed making Mr Joyce yet more unstable. Finally, on another bend he lost his grip, fell and suffered a severe head injury. Mr O’Brien seemed more concerned about trying to hide the ladders than helping his nephew. His excuses for the accident were inconsistent, ridiculous and not worthy of a schoolboy. He said that he did not know that his nephew was hanging onto the rear of the vehicle by the doors or ladders, that his nephew clambered through the back of the vehicle to secure the doors which had come open, that he was riding on the footplate as a ‘joke’ and that his nephew had got out of the van to secure the doors and was not on it at the material time. The judge commented that it was no surprise that nobody wished to call him as a witness or rely upon his evidence. The case was Joyce v Tradex Insurance Company Limited [2012] EWHC 1324;  the issue was whether Mr Joyce could recover damages for personal injury from Mr O’Brien when the claimant was injured whilst both were engaged in a joint criminal enterprise.   Cooke J found that Mr Joyce’s injuries were caused by the speed of the vehicle (essential to the getaway) and his position on the back of the vehicle (holding the ladders and the van whilst standing on the footplate). What Mr Joyce had done was so unusual as to be as causative of his injuries as Mr O’Brien’s driving. Accordingly the claim failed on causation. The claim also failed as a matter of general public policy: a participant in a joint enterprise theft which involves a speedy getaway in a van with a participant driving and the other clinging dangerously to the stolen items and the van cannot recover for injuries sustained in the course of that enterprise. The driver could not owe a duty to his co-conspirator and it was not possible to set a standard of care. What’s more, risk and danger were inherent in the enterprise. Accordingly Mr Joyce’s own criminal conduct precluded him from recovering. (Image Courtesy of Freefoto.com)  

Mind the Gap!

At least you know where you are with the NHSLA. The same is true of the various medical defence organisations. Can the same be said for the new regime proposed under the Health and Social Care Bill (HSCB)? If there are gaps in the indemnity arrangements for NHS care, what does this mean for claimants and defendants? On Friday (24 February 2012) the Department of Health (DOH) issued a short guide for providers of NHS-funded services outlining the proposals in the HSCB. Guide for Providers According to the guide the HSCB “establishes a comprehensive, proportionate and robust legal framework for sector regulation to protect patients’ interests”. NHS services will continue to be delivered by a “mixed economy of public, independent and voluntary sector providers”. A joint licensing regime, applicable to “all providers of NHS services” will come into effect for foundation trusts in January 2013 and other providers from April 2013. The guide also refers to the basis of pricing and payments for “independent sector providers, charities and social enterprises”. What is not clear from the guide is how it is proposed to ensure that these new “providers” have and in keep in place adequate insurance for the care which they provide to NHS patients. If, as the current draft of the HSCB would suggest, there are gaps in the indemnity arrangements for NHS care, claimants may face difficulties in obtaining compensation for substandard care and defendants will be operating with uncertainty over who is liable for what under the proposed new regime. The recent problems with PIP breast implants illustrate what happens when responsibilities become blurred. The danger is that with the HSCB encouraging numerous new “providers” of health care services across both the private and voluntary sectors, there will be confusion when things go wrong. Even if a potential defendant can be identified the HSCB does not at present require new “providers” to meet pre-set indemnity levels. What is to happen if a “provider” is under-insured or goes out of business as some clinics have threatened to do in relation to PIP breast implants? Is there then a claim in negligence against “the commissioning consortia” which may be an individual general practitioner arising out of the original referral? The HSCB still has some way to go to provide the certainty that both claimant and defendants will require if the proposed new regime is to gain the confidence of both. For lawyers faced with increasingly shrill demands to reduce both time and costs, any additional delay in establishing who is responsible and whether adequate indemnity or insurance arrangements are in place will be equally unwelcome. The legal advice from the outset on both sides must be to “mind the gap”.

"I never knew that ....!"

    The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) 2000 is an important piece of legislation. Correctly used, it can bring into the public domain information that would otherwise be unknown to the general public. Yesterday (31 January) it led, indirectly, to the revelation that the James Bond villain that Michael Gove, the Education Secretary, would most like to be is Sir Hugo Drax in Ian Fleming’s novel “Moonraker”. The Education Secretary was answering questions by MPs (and the public via Twitter at #AskGove) during a session of the Education Select Committee. In the course of his evidence, Mr. Gove also revealed that he has not yet complied with the guidance from the Information Commissioner last month that private e-mails which discussed official business were subject to the FOIA 2000. Mr Gove told MPs that he was “awaiting fresh civil service advice” before complying. Mr. Gove was clearly too busy discussing with the Education Select Committee how James Bond, with the help of Special Branch agent Gala Brand who became C.I.A agent Dr. Holly Goodhead in the film, sabotaged Drax's “Moonraker” missile launch to know that on Monday (30 January) the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) had released a new and, I think, very helpful plain English Guide to help public authorities better understand what the FOIA 2000 says and how to apply it in practice. http://www.ico.gov.uk/for_organisations/freedom_of_information/guide.aspx In 56 pages the guide looks at the law in a sensible and straightforward fashion and explains in simple terms what public authorities and organisations need to do to comply, including how to respond to requests and decide what information they should routinely publish. What is, I think, particularly useful is that the guide answers many frequently asked questions and gives practical examples to illustrate how to apply the FOIA 2000 in practice. For any busy practitioner who is currently trying and failing to get answers from a public authority, I recommend simply forwarding the guide to the person dealing with his or her request. It is surely just a coincidence that yesterday (31 January), the day after the ICO published its new guide, the government issued a 133-page memorandum to the Justice Select Committee containing its “Post-Legislative Assessment of the (FOIA) 2000”. http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/policy/moj/post-legislative-assessment-of-the-foi-act.pdf The memorandum sets out the government's position on what it considers to be the primary concerns about the FOIA 2000 and concludes that “the Government’s commitment to transparency stands alongside its commitment to reduce regulatory burdens. A question worthy of consideration is whether the current FOIA regime strikes the right balance between those two objectives”. The fate of the FOIA 2000 is thus uncertain unlike that of Drax who, as film goers will recall, was fatally wounded by Bond’s poison dart wrist watch before being escorted into an airlock and ejected to die in space.