User:Shadowchoir/Webberly
What this is: This is an archive of the livetweets of the Medical Practitioner Tribunal Services (MPTS) case involving Dr Webberley, a clinician working in the private gender healthcare company GenderGP in the UK. Source: The revelant Twitter page
In this case, and current tribunal hearing, Dr Webberley (Dr W) is accused of practising medicine outside the rules and regulations of the General Medical Council (GMC or GMCUK) during the period March -November 2016, A failure to hold a proper safeguarding policy, and (2018) a failure to be registered as a practice in Wales.
Day One:
I am here at the MPTS hearing for Dr Helen Webberley. The hearing has just started. Dr Webberley's counsel, Mr Ian Stern, QC has stated that he has been provided with evidence late, without proper notice.
Dr Webberley is attending via video link. her connection is unstable which is delaying proceedings.
The tribunal chair is disclosing that he used to share chambers with Mr Simon Jackson QC, who is acting on behalf of GMCUK. He adds that they didn't see each other so it wouldn't be a conflict of interest.
The session is breaking so that the tribunal can read through the evidence. We'll be back at 12.
The session has resumed, the Chair is apologising for the technical issues and stating that the tribunal members have now read through the additional evidence provided.
Dr Helen Webberley's counsel Mr Ian Stern (IS) is stating that they were only recently made aware of some of the the GMC's evidence. He says that much of the GMC evidence is hearsay and questions the lack of expert witnesses from Tavistock.
Dr Webberley's counsel (IS) is referring to witness statements made by trans people. He says they are not testimonials as they provide background as to why these patients sought out Dr Webberley's help - because they were unable to get help from their GP or the NHS.
IS states that the GMCUK have the same access to GenderGP records as Dr Webberley has yet there have been no attempts from the GMC to access the actual emails from trans people. These emails detail people seeking help from Dr Webberley.
The GMC are questioning the relevance of the emails, IS states there is nothing to cross-examine as the emails just describe people's experiences and detail why they want to speak to Dr Webberley. IS asks why the prominence of the emails has been raised now.
IS says that the inclusion of the emails as evidence is not a disadvantage to the GMC, they demonstrate why Dr Webberley felt it necessary to act.
IS says mother of patient A made a signed witness statement to GMC in 2018. Her statement was included in the bundle. he says they cannot understand why she wasn't called to attend the hearing until May 2021.
IS has been in contact with the mother of patient A and she has indicated that she will be attending the hearing. She has submitted a draft witness statement.
IS says that there was a 3 year gap between GMCUK receiving the witness statement and contacting the mother of patient A. IS says that the mother of patient A also made a complaint about the GMC.
IS refers to a May 2017 witness statement from a lawyer whose child tried to access care through the NHS. They then went to Dr Webberley. In her statement, she says that Dr W prescribed for harm reduction. IS states that Dr W has the competence to provide this care.
The Chair has asked that the tribunal break for lunch. We will return at 2.05pm.
[tribunal resumes]
Dr Webberley's counsel, IS, is going through evidence they wish to submit, explaining why it should be allowed (as it is not testimonial). IS states that one of their witnesses backed out of testifying due to threats to her life.
IS says that Dr Webberley was in discussion with the GMCUK in 2017 about transgender patients and developing learning materials for doctors to upskill on trans healthcare.
IS is arguing for the emails from trans people to be included as evidence. GMCUK wants these emails discounted. He states that they evidence the torment trans people face when trying to access help to affirm their gender identity.
Re the emails from trans people, IS says, "These witness statements will assist you to understand the deep-seated feelings of individuals and what it means to have an incongruent feeling with your assigned gender".
IS is arguing for correspondence that was sent to the GMC from individuals to be included as evidence, he says they “essentially set out what is happening to their son or daughter- they are journey records as to the progress.”
Counsel for GMCUK, Simon Jackson (SJ), states the rules provide for the uploading of documents that are approved. He says that some of the evidence provided by Dr W's team is anonymised, redacted material which is hearsay and inadmissible.
SJ says that the steps that need to be taken to see if it is fair to admit the evidence is that the author must be contacted and check to see if it's okay. He says the GMC have had no evidence that these steps have been taken.
SJ says that the task of the tribunal is to look at different categories of material and decide if they are relevant & fair. He says it would be fair if they could see the whole document so they can see how the patients present themselves to a GIC or private service.
SJ and IS are discussing what is factual evidence and what is testimonial evidence. IS states that patient journeys are factual evidence.
Chair is questioning how realistic it is to obtain the documents unanonymised and unredacted. He questions if prominence is really an issue as they are from patients that Dr Webberley treated.
GMC counsel, SJ, questions whether the trans people providing witness statements can hold the opinions they do. He asks do they have the capacity to deem Dr W a competent doctor. He says there is a chance that these people no longer stand by what they say.
GMC Counsel, SJ, asks; should the authors of the documents be brought in so they can be cross-examined?
SJ states that he will accept the journey evidence from trans people, but only those without redactions as the redacted ones may need their relevance questioned.
SJ says non-redacted journey stories can be included if it can be proved they are legitimate and if “Dr Webberley can be asked about them.”
SJ says that the question is not did Dr W provide good clinical care to other patients, but specifically the patients discussed here. Having an unblemished record or a good character reference does not form a defense, he adds.
SJ is now discussing the admissibility of some of the evidence provided by the defense.
SJ is discussing the admissibility of evidence from a witness who is unable to attend due to fear for their safety. The GMC says they do not wish to admit evidence from someone who is unwilling to be cross-examined.
SJ says that some testimonials may be relevant in stage 2 of the tribunal but are inadmissible in stage 1. We are in the "finding of fact" stage now (stage 1).
Dr Webberley's counsel, IS, notes that the GMC has had years to respond to aspects of the defence's evidence but has declined to do so. IS states that Dr Webberley has not been a director of GenderGP since 2019.
IS submits testimony that demonstrates Webberley's competence to treat trans patients. IS points out the value of personal testimony as evidence of professional competence.
Counsel from both sides are putting to the Chair their arguments for and against the evidence supplied by patients and organisations being considered during stage 1.
IS states that these opinions and personal experiences are important as they demonstrate a wider picture of Dr Webberley's involvement in the area of trans healthcare.
SJ says that all material should be fully analysed before it's presented to the panel as he says many excerpts may not be relevant.
IS says that it would be unfair to Dr Webberley to be denied the inclusion of evidence that supports her case.
The Chair states that the panel have to decide if it's fair that the letters and reports are included as evidence. Fair to Dr W and fair to the public - who GMC represents.
The panel are going to retire now to decide if the material can be included now, later, or not at all. They will decide by 10.30am tomorrow. That is the end for today. The hearing resumes at 10.30am tomorrow morning.