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.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with The Helen Webberley Tribunal

The Helen Webberley Tribunal Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @tribunaltweets

13 Sep
This is a new thread for the afternoon of Monday 13th September, Day 35 of the Dr Webberley Tribunal hearing. The Panel were due to resume at 2.00 pm but it looks as though they are delayed in private session, time now 2.25 pm, more news as it happens .....
3.05 pm we are back. SJ is in the middle of addressing the panel about, I think, the burden of proof in relation to this case. references to Husband (?) and Sonny(?) will check these case references later. When considering the submissions consider them one at a time. Records:
GMC has produced the records. Question is are there any other records? Is anything missing ? If we can show some things are missing - does that mean things that are relevant are missing/ no, we can't make that leap. These issues were tentatively addressed earlier. Sufficiency is
Read 19 tweets
11 Sep
Good afternoon from @jeeeez17 on Day 31 of Helen Webberley's tribunal, the final day of the GMC laying out it's case.
Delayed return 13.39

P: We’ve seen your submissions and also your timetable. But we won’t put that up now as this will depend on how we do the case this afternoon. So you’re able to start?
IS: It would be better if I could have his document in response first. It may be more time efficient

P: So let’s deal with this on Mon am?
Read 6 tweets
10 Sep
Good morning from Day 31 of Helen Webberley's tribunal. @Jeeeez17 will be posting tweets in bunches through the day covering the cross examination of Dr Kieran
A reminder that we don't have access to the legal bundle of the case against Dr Webberley (HW) who is represented by Ian Stern QC (IS). Counsel for the GMC is Simon Jackson QC (SJ) and Dr K is Dr Kieran. P stands for Panel member (of which there are 3)
Dr K (AK) is Clinical Psychologist at the NHS KOI Children & YP GIDS clinic in Northern Ireland

Session started 9.34
Read 134 tweets
9 Sep
Good afternoon. @katie_sok here for today's session of the Helen Webberley tribunal. Afternoon session to resume at 1.30pm. Tweets will be added to this thread in batches in due course.
As a reminder, HW is Helen Webberley, SJ is Simon Jackson QC Counsel for the GMC, IS is Ian Stern QC Counsel for Dr Webberley, P stands for the Tribunal Panel and Dr D stands for Dr John Dean
Please ask if any abbreviation or shorthand is unclear.
Read 149 tweets
9 Sep
Good morning. This is @katie_sok at day 30 of the Helen Webberley tribunal. We are expecting to start at 10.30am with continued evidence from Dr Dean.
As previously: HW is Helen Webberley, SJ is Simon Jackson QC Counsel for the GMC, IS is Ian Stern QC Counsel for Dr Webberley, P stands for the Tribunal Panel and Dr D or JD for Dr Dean.
Tweets may be added in batches during the day rather than real time.
Read 73 tweets
6 Sep
Good afternoon. This is @Jeeeez17 at Day 29 of the Helen Webberley tribunal where we are expecting continued evidence from Dr Dean. As I'm not a touch typist I will be adding tweets in blocks today rather than in real time.
We are expected to start at 2.30pm.
As previously: HW is Helen Webberley, SJ is Simon Jackson QC Counsel for the GMC, IS is Ian Stern QC Counsel for Dr Webberley, P stands for the Tribunal Panel and JD for Dr Dean.
To any new followers, please bear in mind that we as members of the public don't have access to the legal bundles on which much of the discussions are based.
Read 73 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!