Thread by @C_P_Resource

Hello @tribunaltweets! I am afraid I can't log into the account as it requires a code number sent to mobile phone. So I will start tweeting here. Day 36 of the Helen Webberley Tribunal. An epic journey of rain and traffic jams, made it only 5 minutes late and in time to catch...

.... what appears to be quite a bad tempered clash between SJ and IS (Dr W's barrister). Something to do with a rule 7 statement that has not been seen by the panel. I think SJ wants them to see something in relation to charge 26. The 'Gender GP matters'.

SJ is raising it now to 'get it out of the way'. Gender GP states all medical advice and prescriptions provided by doctors outside the UK. SJ points out that Gender GP denies some elements and conceded others.

SJ makes uncontroversial point that relevant admissions should be before the tribunal. Some question over admissibility of emails but this is a different point. Panel clarify he is talking about rule 35 2004 rules for admissibility on the basis of fairness and relevance.

Panel notes its a hearsay statement but admissions are not included in the rule against hearsay. SJ states as a matter of general principle, this is an admission made on legal advice in formal proceedings and set out by solicitors.

IS has 'no fear' about this material going in as the GMC are 'looking at the matter with one eye'. This is a matter of principle but its not about hearsay. The GMC have closed their case and so it is not just a question of introduction of evidence - but NEW evidence.

It will require other material than just this 'one eyed view of one matter'. As a matter of law, are GMC entitled at this stage to re-open their case to adduce new material?

IS appears to be referring to earlier evidence that was adduced but which was referred to Dr Harker so it was appropriate, the expert having seen the material that the Panel see it and this was exhibited without objection.

GMC did not at that time choose to disclose further material. IS is frustrated. Spent a long time yesterday for the GMC to recognise they do not have any evidence re charges 24-27 and are thus seeking now to re-open their case. Object on principle.

Panel reflect back IS's submissions. The GMC have not disclosed any evidence of the governance page of the Gender GP website and rely entirely on an admission.

IS: SJ hasn't told you what para 34 says - it is the same as charge 27 and Panel picked up on 27. But now SJ has told you what Dr W has put... she DENIED para 27 (?) she said she was not responsible for operation of Gender GP after April 2019.

Dr W says what is on governance page is accurate but I am not responsible for it as it was after 5th April 2019. So this isn't even an admission. Panel needs to decide as a matter of law, on absence of evidence, are you agreeable to GMC re-opening its case...

....having spent several hours before realising it didn't have a case. But SJ has now told you what he seeks to put in. It is not a merits argument at the moment, its a matter of law. Has this arisen on the spur of the moment, which no one could have foreseen?

It cannot be for the prosecutorial body to seek to re-open the case on a matter they might have been acutely aware of 5 years ago.

Panel - SJ was trying to bring para 33 back in. That para 33 relates to para 26 (? do they mean charge - yes they do?) IS - he wants the entirety of para 33 in.
Panel - we must determine SJ's submissions.

[Panel refer to defence ALREADY having made submissions on 'no case to answer' which is interesting]

SJ responds. Of course an issue of principle but you have to look if any injustice arises from it. I have conceded this should have been addressed previously. But its a question of fairness to both parties and over arching principle of the 1983 Act - you ought to consider all ev.

IS responds - the overarching principle is that doctors are treated fairly. Public should not think that the GMC is allowed to do anything it likes!
Panel - not sure if should rely on amended Medical Act. Matters are 'fairness' and 'relevance'.

Panel - is it fair at this stage of proceedings to allow the GMC to adduce this evidence. We should look at submissions and in context of other evidence that bears on this issue. Panel will now retire. Will need to produce a reasoned decision.

10.02am - the Panel have now retired.
[whispers of 'spicey!' and 'fighting talk! from those in the room with me].

Just to remind you - charge 26 relates to that on the governance page of the Gender GP website it says that all medical advice is provided by doctors who are outside the UK.

Charge 27 asserts that this system of governance is motivated to avoid the regulatory systems of the UK, including the CQC, GMC and HIW (assume latter a Welsh regulator?)

And Webberley is saying that after April 2019 this had NOTHING to do with her.

Charges 24 and 25 (which IS says the GMC have provided no evidence about) relate to Dr W operating Gender GP with Dr Mike Webberley and not having input from paediatric specialists nor a safeguarding policy.

Panel will apparently be back at 12 noon. Having availed myself of the facilities and had a coffee bought for me by a very kind fellow observer, my day has now improved 1000% from earlier.

It's now 12.03 and we have dialled back into the waiting room for the remote hearing but no sign of the Panel yet. However, I have discovered a plug and have had a chance to catch up on emails so I am probably as happy as I ever will be right now.

12.24 and the Panel are back.

We are ready to proceed. Panel apologise for taking rather longer than hoped. But have got draft written reasons. Decision is to reject SJ's application. Reasons will be handed down in next 5 mins.

Sorry, thread seems to have broken, but Panel say best thing is to adjourn for lunch now and return at 1.30pm. SJ says entirely matter for the Tribunal. Happy to resume at 1.30. IS thought it might assist if we make submissions now and have clean sweep in the afternoon.

Panel - we need to be fair to SJ who needs to digest our reasons - we have got a few questions for SJ on the submissions he made yesterday.

Panel bounce it back to SJ. Outstanding submissions relate to charges 24- 27 but anything in relation to charge 26 depends on your ruling, so I need to see submissions to see what I need to say in light of it.
ADJOURN TO 1.30pm. See you after lunch!