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.
We have, as a courtesy, deleted some tweets today on personal matters that were considered in public session on 9 March. The following tweets sign off the reports from that day's session.
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 & recently provided new evidence for an adjournment. >>
We now know MW's erasure application was rejected. The tribunal reconvenes to decide on the adjournment request, case management & timing of witnesses.
@StoatlyL Deleted tweets in this thread reported information heard in open session at the Tribunal and were deleted this week as a courtesy at the request of @MPTS_Hearing.
.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
PART 7. Day 2. Afternoon. DG (AHRC) closing.
DG: Oral submissions of AHRC complement written submission. Will take them in a classical way issue by issue. LH contends that there is a community of individuals who don’t want the applicant to have an exemption. He includes the AHRC.
That is not the position of the AHRC, which has taken care to be impartial in responding to A case and respecting its statutory responsibilities. AHRC has expressed no view on what the outcome of this appeal should be, and has not said what the A can and cannot do in the tribunal
Has not sought the assimilation of the A. Its role in the tribunal is to commend to it an interpretation of the SDA that ultimately goes to fulfilling the purposes in the SDA. A's case has been clearly to state that it does seek to discriminate against trans women.
PART 6. Day 2, morning.
M How are we going for time?
LH I need till around 1.15 for closing statements
We are very grateful for accommodating LAG supporters in the room.
LH [CLOSING STATEMENT] simple points 1/ LAG means no harm to anyone, 2/LAG wants the same human rights as offered to anyone, 3/ LAG is not seeking resources or anything else, 4/ there are others that do not want that to happen and that includes the AHRC.
Closing 2 topics.
What has come out of evidence during cross examination
And legal issues emerging from the Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions (SOFIC).
1/ LAG vs AHRC Tuesday 3rd September DG closing submission part b [Part 8 overall?] DH: paragraph 2 it’s around 31 32 there is also a para 82 87 M: seeks to clarify if this is in the act or is DG’s argument ...
2/ DH: you will have heard CE of CA about that line of questioning about LBGTQI who are born female and are lesbian in her evidence that sex is binary and immutable so people DFAB will then take the gender ID of TIM or female and that is ...
3/ CA’s definition of TG. I then asked about women and CA’s evidence is where you get in to some parts that we would like the opposition to discuss some people say that person isn’t a L or that if she IDs as a L then she is a L or we cld say she ...
DAY 2. Part 5.
M: enters the room: discussion about Dr Blake over whether she is required for CE so her evidence stands as is.[discussion about procedure]
LH: So that is not the provenance of the witness
M: I look forward to that, you are aware there is a slight contradiction with the RA position. What is the difference between written and oral evidence?
LH: We need to assist you with [interpreting evidence]. So sometimes expert evidence can inform context, but we are talking about law, and I don't even know what the [missed] because of TvG [missed]
Part 4, Day 1, afternoon. Dr Elena Jeffreys (EJ) appears on videolink.
Introductions and affirmation of witness
DG introduction can we please start with your full name and address
EJ Gives details
DG did you provide an expert report for this proceeding?
EJ Yes
DG Date of report Have you read report or anything you want to add to it ?
EJ Lesbian space project I've heard other versions of what haopened since I submitted the report but none of it I can verify.
DG Member I take it you dont need the details of that?
M asks for clarification
. EJ points out where she's pointed out the lesbian space project in [Sydney]
DG Anything else you'd like to add
EJ no
PART 3, day 1, morning. CA cross examination. M asked CA ‘what are your pronouns’. Peal of laughter from audience.
Clerk (James): CA took oath on affirmation. CA stated that having difficulty hearing, asked if there was amplification. M said he would try to speak up.
LH: asked CA for full name and address. CA answered.
LH: two witness statements? One dated 21 july 2024 and second reply dated 28 august 2024. No changes? CA no. LH asked for those statements be her evidence in chief.
M to CA: don’t feel that you are being cross examined. We just seek to become as familiar as possible with the issues. Your material is quite extensive so some clarification is useful.