Good morning from Manchester. The tribunal will today consider if Dr Harrop’s fitness to practice is impaired. We expect to start at 9.30am.
Reminder; Dr Harrop’s representative is Mr Giles Powell (GP) and the GMC representative is Mr Ryan Donoghue (RD).
Chair has asked if the Harrop’s team wish to call a witness. GP has said it is up to the GMC if they wish to question the witness. The witness seems to be a female doctor.
Today, the tribunal read its determination in private. They found an allegation (item 10 of Schedule 2) that Dr Adrian Harrop (AH) hadn't admitted re offensive &/or insulting &/or inappropriate tweets proved.
They found allegations re intention to intimidate & dox not proved.>>
I can't find Schedule 2 so have asked MPTS for a copy and will add it to this thread tomorrow if we receive it.
Here is updated Hearing Information Sheet which is easier to read than the paper photos posted earlier docs.google.com/document/d/17f… >>
The public were invited in after midday.
In a few minutes, the Chair read through the allegation numbers found proved & not proved too fast to live report. They are set out in the document above. >>
The Tribunal will hand down their decision on the facts tomorrow at noon re the misconduct allegations that Dr Adrian Harrop inappropriately posted tweets that were offensive and/or insulting &/or inappropriate in nature & some of which were intended to intimidate.
Dr Harrop admitted some of the facts.
So the Medical Practitioners Tribunal will decide if:
- the other allegations are found proved
- the doctor's fitness to practise is impaired
- any action should be taken. >>
This second stage of the medical practitioners tribunal hearing is the impairment stage, focusing on whether the doctor's fitness to practise is impaired due to the
allegations found proved.
The tribunal exercise its judgement and applies relevant case law. >>
We're back.
Chair: the tribunal now needs to go and make a decision privately. At that point we need to distill that I to a document and that takes time. We'll then go to a process with a committee and how we arrived at that. The earliest day is midday on Wednesday.
It's likely that day will move and if you'll be so kind to provide contacts if we think it's Thurs or Fri we will inform you.
GP: is there a possibility of it being earlier
Chairman: no
Chair: of you cantget here maybe you can be here by other means. We will make sure sufficient time to arrive. We're not going to tell you to be here immediately.
GP: clarifies again won't be earlier
Chair says no and thanks to everyone.
We are back.
Chair welcomes back.
RD discussing submissions.
Chair says the guidance documents weren't contained within it, they're publucally available, rarely placed into a bundle. Other point to article 6, missing tweets, not determinative in this case
RD: ....evidence could be obtained and rare to stop because of missing evidence overlaps with article 6. Gmc say can make this decision fairly
Chair: if we don't have that context then the burden rests with GMC
RD: there the only points I'd like to raise
GP: hope its convenient to structure submissions as follows. Starting to ref paragraph 3. Hope helpful I've summarised