I WONDER how the faceless bureaucrat who decided to suspend a brain surgeon over a storm in a soup bowl is feeling today?

I wonder if he or she has given a thought to the families of the three patients whose life saving operations were postponed, as a result of surgeon Terence Hope's suspension?

My suspicion is that, behind closed doors, whoever was responsible for this decision is furiously quoting sub-sections of various paragraphs of some trust protocol to justify their actions.

Suspensions cost the NHS a staggering £40m a year so it is pleasing that someone within the Queens Medical Centre, Nottingham, has had the good sense to realise how ridiculous it all is and has promptly returned Mr Hope back to work. It is very easy for large organisations to suspend people - it seems infinitely harder for them to admit a mistake has been made and return them to work. That's why I am pleased to see it took only a week for sense to prevail in this case.

I hope Cleveland Police will see similar sense in the case of four officers who were recently cleared of perverting the course of justice. The case was thrown out when the key prosecution witness - who has a long criminal record - was found to have blatantly lied on oath. One of these officers has retired but the other three remain suspended despite their acquittal. The cost to the public of having them sat at home twiddling their thumbs is about £100,000 a year to add to the estimated £5m already spent on the failed criminal investigation.

The phrase "no smoke without fire" should have disappeared from the English language with the advent of smokeless fuel but the sad reality is that many people still believe this maxim even without having any proof before them. As a result these men will always be under suspicion whilst they remain suspended. I fear that the only reason they are not back at work is because those who suspended them feel they would lose face and so want a second bite of the cherry through a behind doors disciplinary probe.

What fuels this concern is the worrying suggestion that the totally discredited witness - branded a liar by a learned judge - may still be called to give evidence at a disciplinary hearing.

I speak with experience. The Lancet criminal inquiry eventually came to naught when concerns emerged about a number of key prosecution figures. The CPS ruled some of them could not be relied upon as witnesses to the truth. Despite this, these same discredited individuals and their statements were included in subsequent disciplinary hearings as if there were no stain on their character.

Not that long ago when a case collapsed against a policeman, a senior officer would look at the file and use sound judgement and common sense to decide whether disciplinary proceedings should follow. I thought that was one of the reasons senior officers were paid so well but nowadays, in a further blow to the public purse, independent legal advisers are recruited to do the job at a cost of £300 an hour. If disciplinary hearings ensue, the likelihood is these advisors are retained for the hearings. There seems to be a conflict of interest there somewhere.

I have a simple suggestion, which will save vast amounts of time and money in the future. If a Crown Court judge rules a witness is so discredited that he cannot give evidence, then that should be binding on lesser courts, such as a disciplinary hearing. In the case of the suspended detectives, it doesn't take a brain surgeon to realise they should be returned to work immediately.