Gilby: Received one of largest compensation awards ever made to an NHS staff member
The Legal Aid Agency (LAA) board member under fire for the “pivotal role” he played in the plot to remove an NHS whistleblower has chosen not to seek a second term.
However, the LAA stressed that its chief executive and the board chair had no concerns with respect to Ken Gill’s suitability for public office, his integrity or performance.
Lawyers for Dr Susan Gilby in her landmark whistleblowing claim – which led to the former NHS trust boss receiving £1.4m in compensation – were calling on the LAA to remove him for his role in the case.
Mr Gill is a chartered accountant who joined the LAA as a non-executive board member in 2023. He was also chair of its audit and risk assurance committee.
His conduct came under the spotlight as deputy chairman at the Countess of Chester Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, where Dr Gilby was the CEO until December 2022.
As we reported in June, Ian Radford, a senior consultant at arch.law, stressed that Mr Gill was “publicly shamed” by the tribunal ruling, which revealed significant breaches of the Nolan principles – relating to honesty, integrity and accountability – binding public servants like Mr Gill.
In her judgment, Employment Judge Shotter described Mr Gill as a “key player” in an unlawful plot to undermine Dr Gilby and force her to resign after she became a whistleblower in May 2022.
The tribunal found Mr Gill to be an “inaccurate historian” who did not give “credible evidence” on a number of matters; he also gave evidence to the tribunal that was “disingenuous”.
The lawyers said this all proved he was not a fit and proper person to sit on the LAA board.
It has now emerged that Mr Gill has left his post. A spokesperson said: “Following a thorough review and careful consideration of the code of conduct for board members of public bodies, Mr Gill was found fit to continue his role at the LAA.
“He came to the end of his tenure in June and chose not to seek a second term.”
Mr Radford responded: “It is difficult to think of many things that would raise more concern about fitness for public office than damning findings in a court of law as to an office-holder’s credibility.
“We hope Mr Gill has nevertheless reflected on how his conduct has affected others, and that reflection was a driver in his decision not to seek a second term.”
Leave a Comment