A few pieces from the report.
"We noted that Dr Taylor said in his statement that in the 15 years’ experience of involvement in the review of clinical concerns he had never witnessed such resistance from a doctor in the face of valid concerns, to facilitating the provision of assurance on clinical safety on such a scale as that demonstrated by Dr Webberley".
"It is notable that her main appeal statement is very short on facts but long on legal argument". Miaow. 
"One example of this was when she was asked about a letter of complaint dated 14 December 2015 when was sent to the Blaina surgery by a former patient who was writing from prison and seeking Dr Webberley’s home address. Her position was that she did not know about the letter of complaint because it had been sent to the surgery so she did not see it. However, the very next document was a County Court claim form. Although this has no issue date it bears the same county court reference number as that cited in the letter. The fact that the claim had a number indicates that it had been lodged. It emerged that Dr Webberley had attended a telephone case management conference with a District Judge at an early stage. We find that, irrespective of whether she did not or did not receive the complaint letter, she knew about the issues raised by the patient soon after the claim was issued in or about December 2015".
Dr Webberley’s approach to the claim for damages in her evidence to us was that this has nothing to do with her and what the patient was really complaining about was the prison doctor. Cursory reading of the claim form shows that this is inaccurate. In short, her former patient, then in prison, was claiming that she had been under the continuing care of Dr Webberley, a gender specialist who prescribed her hormone treatment. The core of the claim was that, once in custody, she needed Dr Webberley to confirm her treatment and prescription details but Dr Webberley would not talk to her, told the prison doctor that she did not know her and not to call again. The claimant’s case was also that her solicitor wrote to Dr Webberley to no avail".
So much for sterling patient care, eh? 
"We find that she used every possible argument to frustrate any investigation or overview of her practice".
"In our view no conditions could realistically be imposed that would begin to address the clear inefficiency posed by her continued inclusion in the MPL because she does not, in truth, accept that she is accountable to the LHB. In this she is very plainly wrong".
"Dr Webberley’s attitude is one of entrenched resistance to regulation and is highly coloured by her lack of integrity and candour".
"We take into account also that she was seriously unwell in 2016 and has suffered from ill health since".