Tribunal Tweets 2 #OpenJustice Profile picture
Mar 21, 2022 10 tweets 2 min read Read on X
Good afternoon & welcome to the medical practitioners tribunal to consider the fitness to practice of Dr Michael Webberley, co-founder of GenderGP

MW's request to adjourn has been denied & we expect further case management. 2.15PM start.
Catch up here:

threadreaderapp.com/thread/1505858…
GMC counsel are Simon Jackson QC (SJ) and his junior Ryan Donohue (RD).

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

Chair: One of 3 tribunal members acting as Chair
We are back:
Chair is saying there is a later start tomorrow and a great deal of detail in the case and need to set thos out in the determination (D). Hoping for the D tomorrow or Wed latest and first expert to give evidence on friday
RBS: I need to liase with those who instruct me. I think it proper to indicate I oppose any application to proceed in absence
Chair: thank you. I'll come back to that
SJ: it actually bleeds into the point RBS has just raised....Should we just go back into private.
Chair: of course

I am back in the waiting area
We are back.
Chair: both of you made provisional submissions, do you have any updates
SJ: tribunal should proceed to deal with these individually. RSB says in any event we are going to be facing an app after the first one
RSB: I agree with SJ and would invite you to finalise written determination then proof of service and then move on to 'in absense'. I'll need another written D on that.
Chair: we will cross that hurdle when we come to it. We will consider the merits of it and if possible
Chair: we did discuss on provisional basis as to whether matters should be taken sequentially..in light parties agree on that, that's what we will do. It seems to us the decision to adjourn or proceed in absence are separate...
Chair: ..butbthere is an overlap between the two & should give assistance to MW to know our reasons of adjournament. We propose an update after 2pm Tues whether we can hand down written reasons, or if its on Wed, we'll let you know. If no other matters we will adjourn.

Adjourned
@threadreaderapp please unroll

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Tribunal Tweets 2 #OpenJustice

Tribunal Tweets 2 #OpenJustice Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @tribunaltweets2

Sep 3
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.
Read 37 tweets
Sep 3
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).
Read 89 tweets
Sep 3
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 ... Image
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 ...
Read 97 tweets
Sep 3
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]
Read 94 tweets
Sep 2
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
Read 101 tweets
Sep 2
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.
Read 99 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(