"He is a menace to every patient that he touches... he should never be allowed to practise" - gynaecologist Dr Eldon Lee, who worked alongside Richard Neale in Canada in the late 1970s.

FORMER Friarage Hospital gyneacologist Richard Neale was struck off the medical register 15 months ago after a two-year campaign by his victims. While the campaigners are still elated that they have stopped him practising, they now want to ensure that lessons are learned from the Neale scandal so others are protected.

That is why they have rejected the Department of Health's offer of a private investigation into the affair. This week, their fight for a public inquiry will reach a crucial step when an application for a judicial review is expected to be considered by a High Court judge.

The victims argue that the surgeon's record in the Canadian health service before he accepted a job at the Northallerton hospital was so alarming that no one in a position of authority should have allowed him to practise on British patients.

Mr Neale's victims insist that a full public inquiry chaired by a judge with the power to order the production of documents and witnesses is the only way to establish why the NHS and medical establishment utterly failed to prevent more than 70 women patients being injured.

At the GMC hearing, the chairman of the panel said: "Your history of professional errors, failure to accept responsibility, and dishonesty leave the committee in no doubt that you are guilty of serious professional misconduct."

The GMC's professional conduct committee found 34 out of 35 allegations of malpractice proven, including a string of botched operations. The sample 'charges' were just a fraction of the serious complaints made against Mr Neale by former patients. The findings of fact "reveal many deficiencies in the standard of care you provided to patients as well as unprofessional and dishonest behaviour," the chairman added. If hospital managers, the GMC and the regional health authority had heeded earlier warnings from Canada, the 71 women who are to receive compensation from the NHS Litigation Authority would not have suffered.

Mr Neale's professional misdeeds began back in the late 1970s. Within two years of joining Prince George Regional Hospital in British Columbia, Canada, he was under investigation following the death of 56-year-old Joyce Kitchen, who had a benign tumour on her womb.

Mr Neale ignored the advice of a senior doctor that it would be too dangerous to operate because the patient only had one kidney. In the process of removing Mrs Kitchen's womb, he severed her urethra. He repaired the damage even though he was not an expert in urology. Subsequently Mrs Kitchen suffered renal failure, internal bleeding and died.

The surgeon was then banned from operating at the hospital without supervision and medical licensing officials declared him "lacking in judgement" and ordered him to retrain. After retraining, Mr Neale moved to neighbouring Ontario, where he got a job at Oshawa General Hospital.

In 1981, Mr Neale decided to use a powerful stimulant to induce labour in 40-year-old Geraldine Krawchuk, even though it was not authorised by the hospital officials. Mrs Krawchuk died during labour. Four years later, in June 1985, a disciplinary hearing by Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons into the Krawchuk case found an allegation of incompetence against Mr Neale proven in his absence. His licence to practise was revoked and licensing authorities in the UK and the US were informed.

But, by that time, Mr Neale had been working at the Friarage for five months. In 1986, the then Yorkshire Regional Health Authority investigated Mr Neale's activities in Canada but decided to take no disciplinary action. The authority referred the matter to the GMC, which had already been tipped off about Neale's unsafe operating methods by Canadian GP Dr Andrew Sear. Dr Sear told a Canadian newspaper:"I was alarmed that he was practising. I was concerned about his patients."

Yet, in the face of growing evidence of that Mr Neale was unsafe to practise, the GMC took no action. To try to clear his name, Mr Neale returned to Canada in 1987, but his application was refused "on the basis of deep-seated attitudinal and judgemental problems". Despite this further confirmation of Mr Neale's failings, British authorities were content to allow Neale to operate on NHS and private patients.

Mr Neale took up his post at the Friarage a few month's before a disciplinary hearing in Canada struck him off the register. In 1991, the Northallerton hospital promoted him to head of department.

As complaints began to mount against the gynaecologist, his bosses continued to maintain that all was well. Even when Mr Neale was given a police caution for an incident in a Richmond public lavatory in 1991, his bosses continued to trust in his judgement.

In 1993, the hospital carried out an internal investigation into Mr Neale. A year later he was demoted from head of maternity to consultant. A year later, after a second internal investigation, Mr Neale was suspended. He left the trust after negotiating a favourable reference, a payment of £100,000 and the sale of his private clinic in Northallerton for £57,000.

This reference enabled Mr Neale to get a short-lived job at the Leicester Royal Infirmary. He parted company with this hospital after an incident with a porter. Subsequently, Leicester hospital officials expressed "extreme dissatisfaction" that the Friarage reference failed to mention difficulties they had with the consultant.

In September 1998, a group of former patients of Neale formed a campaign group in a bid to get him struck off. This group snowballed with more than 200 women joining. Earlier this year Simon John, a top medical negligence lawyer who represents many of Mr Neale's victims, set out the case for a public inquiry in a letter to Health Secretary Alan Milburn. The gravity of the incidents and the number of people involved cry out for a public inquiry, says Mr John

He says there were "some shocking injuries" caused by Mr Neale, including many cases involving urine and bowel incontinence. "The report of a public inquiry "will command greater public confidence than that of a private inquiry."One of the vital areas that a public inquiry has to address is to examine what, if any, steps were taken to reassess Mr Neale's suitability to practice and to protect patients' interests after facts emerged about his activities in Canada.

He says a public inquiry would also be the best way to examine the extent to which Mr Neale's professional colleagues knew of unsuitability to practise and whether they passed on information to the authorities. Mr John argues that the public inquiry could also establish whether procedures were in place to prevent staff from 'blowing the whistle' about Mr Neale. It was also important to establish the facts surrounding the circumstances in which he was provided with a favourable reference, adds Mr John.

Regardless of whether the decision goes against them, the Neale ex-patient group say they are determined to use the private investigation to try to shed light on some of the secret decisions which ultimately led to pain and distress for large numbers of women.