Thread by @tribunaltweets

Good morning from Manchester. Today is Day 35 of the Tribunal. This is @jengoreinhardt tweeting today’s events.

We are about to resume after a delayed start to enable the Panel to read Mr Simon Jackson's submissions.

As before I will use SJ for Simon Jackson QC Counsel for the GMC, IS for Ian Stern QC Counsel for Dr Webberley and P for the Panel Chairman, Mr Angus Macpherson.

I understand that this morning IS will address the Panel with his legal submissions on behalf of Dr Webberley. Not sure whether IS has filed/submitted the Defence Skeleton Argument yet - I know SJ has submitted his Skeleton and supporting cases and the Panel read it this morning.

I restate for new followers that this account is made up of a team of volunteer members of the public who have no access to the documents filed in this case i.e. no Witness Statements, Exhibits etc while other accounts may be linked to the party concerned and may have such access

11.35 a.m. we are back - communication check. All remote again today. P refers to IS having filed his submissions and to SJ having responded to them. Now listing the legal authorities the parties rely on - can't note these.

IS now, test is there evidence at this stage which would enable a Tribunal properly directed to find against the Defendant. Charge 7 and 8 re Patient D and C Dr Harker says essentially Dr W did not make relevant enquiries. IS has looked at that in his submissions.

IS giving an overview about how his submissions relate to the charges. Seems to be referring to attempts made by HW ( Dr Webberley) to make appropriate enquiries and what evidence there is in relation to those attempts. Looking at Dr Harker's evidence Day 11 p13 ( we can't see)

Talking about seeing/not seeing a dashboard - Dr Harker did not see any comments or dashboard. Seems to be suggesting/asserting that Dr Harker could not see the full picture to enable him to criticise the actions HW took. Limited info available to HW>

Looking at p 18 chronology from GMC solicitors from May 2017 to August 2021 - D19 all contacts GMC tried to make - HW wrote in 2018 - what contacts were there? Chasing from GMC - communicating about Dr Mac, 14/07/21 critical passage Dr Mac Ltd was closed

Records seem to have been held by another company - ETail (?) - records were digital question over whether they were maintained. Most records passed to Dr Mac Healthcare after first quarter of 2017 - no record of when the data was passed.

Who had the details? This is not dealt with by SJ in his submissions. Poor sound quality at times and IS is reading out from earlier chunks of evidence. Seems to be concentrating on who had the records at relevant time was it Dr Mac or Etail? Unsatisfactory no-one accepting they

had the patient records. What GMC cannot do is bring an allegation about patient records without bringing us the patient records. That is the key part of charges 7 and 8. IS saying these charges depend on the records - no reasonable tribunal could say that records had been omitt

omitted when the records themselves can't be examined. Not an abuse of process - completely different. Absence of reasoning / Up to GMC to show absence of records and reasoning by producing records about these two patients. Re 15 and 17

charges relating to Frosts Pharmacy : OnLine GP Services Ltd - HW corrected who she was working for at the relevant time. 3.2 which organisation do you work for? Online GP Services Ltd was the reply and as a freelance GP. Allegation she failed to declare HW was subcontracted -

IS says HW did declare the position correctly - references HW's contract with Frost Pharmacy Ltd - hard to follow what IS is saying here. IS saying no evidence ? I am lost re this. Seems highly technical...

Is he arguing about the meaning of "sub-contracted" in contrast with "contracted" - ? very hard to say. Did H report her suspension? Is suspension a neutral act? GMC says HW not strictly required to report her suspension to Frosts.

Suspension in Wales governed all her practice ? IS says this is wrong - did not affect her work in Oxford for Frosts Pharmacy. Looking at p7 - she was not allowed to do NHS work, not able to be paid by NHS. C6 p92 GMC guidance legal or disciplinary proceedings deals with this

Charges 21b to 23 - IS says Health Board knew about GMC investigation. Investigation started March 2017 and HW was informed. Health Board reps were informed at the same time - they knew in April. June 2017 HW solicitors letter sent - no evidence that during the review period

HW failed to advise the Health Board about the investigation - they already knew about it. 23.06.17 letter from HW solicitors demanding suspension be revoked. Refers to apparent admissions that Health Board ( Dr Taylor) knew a full investigation had been opened. Now p 30 day 10

question re obligation on a doctor to inform the Health Board - even where the Health Board might already know? IS makes simple point about this - failure to inform is not valid as Health Board knew - SJ does not deal with this says IS. Charges 24-27 about Gender GP - no dates re

heads of charges, also IS criticises use of present tense and past tense - need to be accurate about what is alleged. Re failure to refer to accredited paediatric specialist - where is the duty to refer on a website- if no duty then no failure says IS.

25a and 25b charges about safeguarding - website does not reference input from accredited paediatricians - where is the duty says IS . Where is the duty about safeguarding says IS? Can't prove the charges without these duties having been breached says IS.

Re the child safeguarding policy - absent? - where is the duty to include such a policy asks IS. IS says there are links on the website to a safeguarding policy - we cannot see this of course. Charges 26 and 27 SJ relates to regulations and framework - not specific - not sure

exactly what IS' point is about these charges. GMC has jurisdiction over members wherever they may be. IS alleges no evidence re Charge 26 and says Charge 27 does not apply to HW when she was operating. IS is attacking the idea that working from Wales was motivated by a desire to

escape scrutiny. Panel asks for clarity re Charge 26 ?Clarity sought about which charges SJ referred to in his opening. P suggesting lunchtime adjournment now until 2.00 pm. Back at 2.00 pm please.