Thread by @tribunaltweets

New afternoon thread. We start at 2:30

And we're off. Some rebuttal evidence regarding travel arrangements in April 2017. Mr Gale, pharmacist, has provided a one page statement showing the procedure for login. IS is content for this evidence to be admitted. Waiting for Mr Singh to confirm arrival.

D55 and D56 are the documents - booking and google entries. IS - I have looked at Mr Stubbs statement. Awaiting Mr Stubbs statement to the Chair and tribunal.

Still waiting

Chair - Mr Gales extra statement will be seen at the end. SJ - there was evidence given by HW about how her involvement changed so you have reference to a conversation with Mr Gale. From where this material can be accessed can be addressed. Screenshot exhibit of what the

person logging in will see. The GMC can admit that the 3rd element of the identification process will only apply in the case of prescribing - the PIN. 3 identifiers - an email, a password and a code. HW said that element of the identification process wasn't there when she worked

there. GMC accept this. Turning to doc SG6 - data focussed on the 18th May, first time stamp is 06:49 login number for Dr Michael Webberley. Then a number of entries successfully until 06:57. Look at entry number 30 - insert a new patient, note. The entry MW has made has been

discussed with HW. Entry 71, timed 12:06, we can see there is an entry 'accept or awaiting dispatch' then after that MW has logged in at 14:46 and a number of entries between then and entry number 125 last in that series is at 15:06. Entry reads 'set to awaiting dispatch'.

An interlude until 19:07 when MW logged in. GMC submits that when we look at the google timeline of activity and flight data this evidence is consistent with the fact that Drs Webberly would be travelling. MW/HW say this is accessible via a smart phone.

(lost the audio again) Chair - do we adjourn now to a suitable time, can you IS get your ducks in a row by 4:30? To discuss putting parts of her statement in the public domain? IS - I don't think so. Defence are not calling any other evidence. Better to come back at a time when

we can hear final submissions. Chair - public know that parts of Patient A's evidence will be released to the public. This should be dealt with asap - but you, IS, are saying that you cannot get the relevant permission overnight? IS - tomorrow is the best option.

Chair - we will reconvene at a time convenient to you, IS, to hear that. 9:30 suggested. Chair - the whole of Thursday and Friday will now be available for the preparation of submissions. Chair - Will you, SJ, be ready on Monday morning? SJ - yes. Chair - this will help IS

IS is proposing to offer final submissions orally. Chair - when will the submissions be to hand? IS - I will complete mine on Tuesday after my learned friend. ADJOURNED UNTIL TOMORROW AT 9:30