Thread by @tribunaltweets2

Good morning & welcome to Day 1 of the medical practitioners tribunal considering the fitness to practice of Dr Michael Webberley, co-founder of Gender GP.

I'm @StoatlyL & will be live tweeting for you today from an MPTS "viewing room" in Manchester.

There are technical difficulties - so I am waiting in a physical waiting room.

I have been handed the detailed allegations - 42 pages. More on the allegations later.

Members of the Tribunal Tweets team have disabilities, and caring responsibilities so we asked MPTS and appealed to the GMC for remote access to this 100% virtual tribunal on the grounds of a reasonable adjustment.

#OpenJustice

MPTS & the GMC have refused us remote access.

This obstructs #OpenJustice by making it difficult and expensive for us to attend this 57 day tribunal which runs online until 1 June.

So we are starting. The hearing is not online - it is hybrid. The tribunal are present in person.

GMC counsel are Simon Jackson QC (SJ) and his junior Ryan Donohue (RD)

Dr Michael Webberley (MW) is represented by Rosalind Scott Bell (RSB). He is not attending.

There are preliminary issues which are being dealt with in private, including a request from RSB to adjourn.

Whilst considering matters in private, there has been a discussion of an application for voluntary erasure.

It might be dealt with by adjournment of the tribunal while voluntary erasure is considered by a GMC examiner and a medical examiner, not the tribunal.

Adjourned to 2pm.

Some background on voluntary erasure (VE).

Please note your reporter has no expertise in this matter.

A doctor may submit an application for voluntary erasure at any time and there is no requirement to wait until the conclusion of fitness to practise proceedings. >>

When I rejoined the trib, I didn't follow the discussion. I think one question is whether or not the hearing has started.
This tribunal is hearing preliminary matters.

If "not started", a lay & a medical case examiner will consider the VE application.

gmc-uk.org/-/media/docume…

The trib chair enquired on availability of case examiners.

If the MPT has begun, then the VE application must be determined by the tribunal.

In some circumstances, it will not be in the public interest to erase a doctor while there are outstanding concerns about their fitness to practise.

[However, could a doctor could bring evidence on health issues?]

Voluntary erasure is not necessarily permanent and a doctor can apply for restoration at any time.

As part of their overall assessment of the public interest, case examiners must assess the risk posed by a future restoration application.

This can be done by considering the likelihood of
the doctor seeking restoration to the GMC Register and whether the GMC would be able to revive the unresolved allegation(s) should they do so.

SJ advises that the case examiners (CE) (inc mental illness specialist) could conclude by Friday.

He says that assessment shd take place in any event, whether trib or CE consider the voluntary erasure (VE). SJ refers by name to two doctor's reports.

He refers to a paragraph in the proof of service bundle (which we don't have). Dr Moaddin (?) re MW's mental health, and the opinion and prognosis.

The medical reports are in front of the trib.

The correspondence on the VE application was sent in on the 12th (not sure of month Feb? ).

Short break whilst SJ ensures RSB has the bundle with same pagination. I think RSB was only retained for the trib, not the VE so her copy of papers has a different pagination.

The GMC would want to conduct their own assessment of Dr MW on Friday or Monday afternoon, if trib took view that CE shd complete their assessment. Note: they had started but abandoned their examination.

He's been seen twice with Dr M, once by GP Dr Paul Maslin, and twice with Professor Gerning (?) the last as recently as 4 March. SJ says Gerning was opining beyond his specialism.

So the GMC would want him examined by their own specialist.

SJ sets out the chronology in the proof of service bundle. MW had made an application for a postponement last year. 1/12/21 he asked for a link re VE, and GMC send link to hard copy UD5 form to family member on 2 December 2021.

24 Jan MPTS to MW - postponement (applied 24?November) refused.

Further postponement application on 24 Feb.

12 Feb VE application was logged and allocated to someone in {missed date) March.

SJ suggests VE application is concluded before the trib deals with the adjournment.

Trib has not made any decision. So if assume trib has not got the power to consider the VE or thought CE shd consider it first, and decisions was reached on Friday this week, -would RSB think that was appropriate?

If VE took place then no case for adjournment to be considered.

RSB submits the VE application can be considered at any time. She doesn't know why it took several weeks to consider. RSB is only instructed for today so keen to adjourn today.

RSB recognises unfair that GMC might want to instruct psychiatrist and/or cardiologist, so suggests the trib might consider the adjournment. MW means no discourtesy. RSB could appear on Friday - but invites dealing with application to adjourn today.

Trib: fresh medical evidence served very recently. So consideration of MW's medical issues are central to the application. RSB agrees GMC should have the right to get their own assessment, and MW would be available for a medical assessment by zoom on Friday.

So the CE decision will be concluded by Friday close of play. Finances are limited so if on Monday, maybe another counsel would be instructed. MW will not be present and RSB is not available.

SJ - it would be helpful if MW would make his GP records available urgently, rather than having to get letter of disclosure.

Adjournment for trib to consider if they have enough info, or need more info or shd consider the adjournment application.

Does trib have the power as the VE was served on GMC a month before the hearing?

Counsel to liaise on mechanics of the GMC medical assessment and info on Friday during the adjournment right now.

Case management decision -oral explanation. This am was due to be the first day of the hearing,

2 preliminary issues were identified.

Application to adjourn and an application for VE.

Adjournment app - on 1 and 4 March further medical evidence was provided from Dr Mohiddin and Prof Gerning on MW's current medical condition. It will be central to issue of adjournment.

GMC would like to seek own medical assessment. MW consents - and will be arranged and completed on Friday pm. They are entitled to deal with the new medical evidence and respond to it.

Trib hopes application to adjourn can be dealt with on Monday.

VE application was served on 12 Feb. In outline the GMC submitted that the trib cld determine that application, and shd do so before adjournment is considered.

RSB highlighted Reg 3 (4) and Reg 3 (8) provide that when registrar receives VE application, it shd be dealt with by CE. So trib thinks it shd have been referred to CE for determination.

SJ would seek to persuade the trib that nothing to deter trib from determining the VE,

Trib says not necessary to consider the case law as it was received 4 weeks ago - so unfortunate not determined before today. As CE can consider the case, and the trib is being adjourned for other reasons, trib does not need to decide.

So it is convenient to have CE make the determination. It seems to the trib not appropriate to make decision on adjournment when the VE application is extant.

So the question arises can the trib realistically resume on Monday? Preference of the trib to do so on Monday. If the VE is successful, then it won't proceed.

SJ anticipates the medical report will be served on the defence on Friday late or Monday, and considers issue of getting defence representation.

SJ notes that there may be differences in medical evidence if the hearing continues.

MW's medical evidence isn't agreed or accepted. So the trib will need evidence and GMC will want to cross examine Prof Gerning's opinion outside his own discipline [think this refers to mental health conclusions] so issues of availability.

Trib says probably unlikely that they'll hit the ground running on Monday. Need for discussions between counsel and consideration re calling witnesses. So a late start time on Monday could enable case management discussion.

It would be desirable that RSB stays with case if possible, and can be managed within the overall timetable. RSB is on a S28 case in crown court so no flexibility.

It is a 3 day trial so RSB won't be available. RSB's view is Dr W shd be represented if at all possible.

It is going to take a while to digest the reports and have witnesses ready for Monday. RSB will speak to the instructing solicitors.

Trib member asks if availability of GP medical records and GP if needed for witness is an issue. There is a GP report in the bundle, and Prof Gerning wrote to another GP [same practice]. SJ says it's probably just the papers - issue for defence if Dr Maslin needs to be called.

RSB will make enquiries on the availability of Dr MW's medical witnesses next week.

GMC doctor is available on Monday pm. Dr MW's medics shd be heard then GMC's medic in rebuttal if different conclusion. Hearing adjourns until time tbc on Monday.

TLDR: Dr Michael Webberley applied for voluntary erasure from the GMC register. The Tribunal say it is "unfortunate" that was not determined prior to the hearing today.

MW had two requests for postponement declined & has now provided new medical evidence for an adjournment. >>

The Tribunal has asked for the VE decision to be taken by the case examiners by Friday pm.

If erasure is determined, then it seems the misconduct evidence will not be heard.

If MW's erasure application is rejected, the tribunal reconvenes on Monday (tbc) to agree adjournment case management & timing of medical witnesses.

We expect to be back with the VE case determination on Friday.

So that's all from @StoatlyL for @tribunaltweets2 in Manchester.

@StoatlyL @threadreaderapp unroll