Thread by @tribunaltweets2

Good afternoon and welcome to today’s reporting from the Tribunal Tweets team in Manchester by me, @StoatlyL. We do not know when session in public session will start.

The medical practitioners tribunal has been dealing with preliminary matters in private since 11am after >>

>> refusing the request to adjourn the fitness to practice hearing of Dr Michael Webberley, co-founder of Gender GP.

Abbrevs:
GGP: Gender GP
GMC: General Medical Council
MW: Dr Michael Webberley
MPTS: Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service
Tribunal: Trib
VE: Voluntary Erasure

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

RD was the GMC counsel in Dr Adrian Harrop’s case which we reported last year on at @tribunaltweets .

We expect the counsel & witness to attend online and the tribunal members to be in person.

We do not expect Dr Michael Webberley to be present and will advise if he is represented by counsel when we know.

The tribunal will inquire into the allegation that, between April 2017 and June 2019, Dr Michael Webberley (MW) failed to provide good clinical care to 25 patients. It is alleged that MW’s failings related variously to consultation, history taking, examination, diagnosis, >>

prescribing, communication, follow up, informed consent, assessment, working with colleagues, working within the limits of his expertise and working within guidance.

It is also alleged that a number of patient consent forms contained information that was untrue and that MWs actions were dishonest.

It is further alleged that until 2019, alongside Dr A (Dr Helen Webberley, MW's wife, who is anonymised for this tribunal), MW operated and controlled the company known as Gender GP, which was set up in such a way as to avoid the regulatory framework of the UK.

It is alleged that in 11/18, Dr A was made subject to an interim order of suspension meaning that there were no practising GPs working for Gender GP.

It is alleged that following this MW retained the name of his company as Gender GP and that his conduct was dishonest.

We are grateful that the tribunal Chair said he desires to conduct the proceedings in public so far as they able to.

Unlike the #ForstaterTribunal, we do not see the evidence bundles - over 600 pages of expert evidence and 25 sets of patient records.

This can make it difficult to follow the case reporting, as the evidence in chief is in the bundle, and counsel use the time with witnesses to elucidate and clarify, not to tell a story about what happened. We simply report the questions and reflect the answers given.

The first stage of the tribunal will be the fact finding - so GMC counsel will focus on proving the allegations.

I have just been advised the tribunal will now be in camera until 11am tomorrow. It is possible there will be a public session from 11am. More tomorrow.

We will be reporting on another application to adjourn the misconduct tribunal in a few minutes.

SJ: GMC has made an application to proceed in absence of the doctor. Now there is another application to adjourn. So GMC has not used this situation for the availability of the GMC expert - he will now not be available until 7 April.

Collateral listing of case with HW's case is pure consequences of timing of listings - nothing to do with the GMC. IF MW doesn't proceed it won't get relisted by MPTS until Dec 2022.

IGMC relies on determinations made by trib on r=the previous adjournment and determinations on
interlocutory applications made since 9 March. These cases are fact specific - MW's conduct is relevant. Late service of medical evidence on which he relies. Delay of serving material

GMC - progress could and should be made by the trib. SJ refers to a case LJ May = proceedings should not be bogged down. The court in general proceedings should proceed due to difficulty of securing witnesses and counsel and can be challenged in court.

So the question is shd this case proceed and MW be able to challenge in the High Court.
We have 58 days - so real risk that the rest of this hearing would be lost if it doesn't proceed.

Another case cited - Judge accepted GMC submission is that the right moment to challenge is at the end of the disciplinary process.

Public interest in allowing the tribunal to proceed and respect the integrity of the process.

GMC submits that not appropriate for trib to grant an adjournment on circumstances where there isn't clarity on definitive process and timetable. in reality we will loose the rest of this hearing.

Another case LJ King - MPTS must have the active pursuit of s11b.
This is a very experienced trib - properly directed by law - GMC submits new application to adjourn shd not be granted. MW can go to High Court and get a stay.

Nothing more from MW's counsel RBS. We didn't hear her arguments. Adjourned and update from the tribunal at about 3pm.

TLDR: Michael Webberley (not present) made new applications (which we have not seen) including a second request to adjourn & for an administrative review.
The first adjournment request was refused.

GMC asks the tribunal to refuse again as uncertain review wld complete promptly.

MW would need advice on seeking a stay in the High Court - so more delay if adjourned.

GMC says continue & MW can apply to the High Court to stay the tribunal. If case doesn't proceed, it will be rescheduled Dec 2022 and into 2023 - a delay not in the public interest.

@threadreaderapp pls unroll