Harrop MPTS Hearing

This is what the fox killer held his hands up over. It may not be the same but perhaps a bod with legal knowledge could confirm.
Can't do a link but it was here. goodlawproject.org/update/apology-jo-abingdon-bethell/

I'm so gobsmacked by how this is all playing out.

Thanks, Motorina. I don't know how this tribunal works so that is helpful!
I don't know if being included in the evidence bundle is enough. I don't think it is in a civil court because otherwise there wouldn't be a distinction between being admitted in evidence and being referred to.

I don't know the procedure rules of civil courts. But tribunals are civil courts, working under the law relatign to the regulation of that profession. For example, the standard of proof is the civil standard.

I know that's half an answer. Does it help if I say it's normal for witness statements to be included in full (less agreed redactions) in the evidence bundle, and for them to form part of the evidence.

Do the civil procedure rules concerning witness statements which apply to civil courts also apply to this tribunal?
If so, has each and every witness statement given to Vice been admitted in evidence by the tribunal as opposed to merely been referred to?
Isn't this what the fox killer got wrong and apologised for very recently?

Losing an hour at the end of the day is one thing. But, if the panel is to agree to hearing being adjorned to new dates, they will want to see objective medical evidence stating he is too unwell to continue.

If he is that unwell it is of course right and proper that it be adjorned til he is well enough to defend himself. If he isn't, and the panel considers he has voluntarily absented himself, they have the authority to simply continue without him.

Looking at the charge sheets it seems a huge amount has been admitted and proved. That's a lot of things he's definitely done.

Might I suggest that we refrain from mentioning the litigious one or reproducing any of their words here?

MNHQ can probably do without the hassle that might ensue.

Yes this is an interesting point. Witnesses don't sit and listen to each other's evidence do they? But is SH actually going to be giving evidence for the defence? Doesn't strike me as a very good strategy.

Strange how immediately after the meeting with his legal team over the Vice article AH needed to take a break and the Hearing was adjourned until tomorrow.

Wouldn't surprise me if AH threw the sickness sympathy card in tomorrow, self diagnosed sickness of course.

I am phrasing things carefully because although the article was misguided in my view it is for the panel to decide whether or not to take it into account.

Yes, this exactly. And I'm sure, should either party want it to be taken into account, both will be invited to give their submissions on that before a decision is made.

@Signalbox yes, if a witness is heard in private then their statement (or at least the bits relevant to the parts heard in private) would also be in private. And that material would be redacted out of the final public determination.

Whether any of the parties in the hearing are allowed to share documents with the press then that, I'm afraid, I have no idea about. It never occurred to me that anyone would! Registrants tend to either not turn up at all, or turn up in their smartest suit very much on their best behaviour.

My flabber is ghasted.

I’m not sure SH has a very firm grasp of the law. Haven’t the panel decided that one of the witnesses should be heard in private? I find it hard to believe that if the panel has ruled that certain witnesses are to be heard in private that ruling would not extend to their witness statement.

But Lying Flawyer does and claims it’s all legit. Presumably because they are a defence witness.

But of all people witnesses can't possibly be allowed to see the rest of the evidence? They could corroborate another witnesses made up story to undermine the prosecution. If this individual was a witness then why are they allowed to see anything?

As the hearings are public if all that has been shared is information that will be made public at some point it may be difficult argue that the act of sharing the information is problematic. If the information that has been shared is information that is not public or subject to any sort of confidentiality requirement or order of the tribunal that would be very different.

However, professional conduct relates not only to objective facts but also judgement by individuals and the perception of the profession. That is why I think the panel (who I think have their own legal advisor) will need to think if they can consider this as evidence of AH lack of insight into his behaviour and given the article clearly badges him as a doctor how the article may affect the public perception of profession as a whole.

The panel have discretion to amend allegations but also to hear submissions on impairment and sanction. I tend to agree that this is where the article could become relevant because remorse and insight become harder to demonstrate when it could be argued the article gives the impression that it pre-empts the whole tribunal process and determines the seriousness of the actions.

I am phrasing things carefully because although the article was misguided in my view it is for the panel to decide whether or not to take it into account.

1. Minor tweaks, extention of a date range, and a couple of withdrawals.
2. Annotated to show what is admitted and what remains in dispute.

[quote Motorina]@IntemperateSpirits you are bang on on the cake disaster photo!

I reckon this has escalated from 'eating all the cake in the staff room' to 'taking all the cake, smearing it all over you, and putting pictures of your naked cake-covered self on social media'. It is an... unusual approach to damage mitigation.[/quote]
and that's understated!

Thank you Signal for the clarification.

@IntemperateSpirits you are bang on on the cake disaster photo!

I reckon this has escalated from 'eating all the cake in the staff room' to 'taking all the cake, smearing it all over you, and putting pictures of your naked cake-covered self on social media'. It is an... unusual approach to damage mitigation.

However, my non-lawyer's understanding is that a defendant has pretty broad rights to share data relating to their case with anyone they wish. I know this has come up in the past in relation to witness statements from sexual assault victims.

Or if the GMC will seek to get the article covered in this hearing if they feel it pertinent.

Not sure if that's possible, but the fact they said it needs investigation suggests it is.

Be good if someone could clarify that though

They couldn't do that at this stage. If Harrop has acted wrongly it would take ages to investigate and make a case against him. And you can't just add charges during a hearing. Sometimes an application is made prior to a hearing to add similar charges but that would not apply here.

Maybe I am being overdramatised here, but all I see is the witnesses being abused all over again. One rule for them and yet special privileges for the man who has just doxed them a second time. Nope, that is precisely why women here are having a bit of a WTF? moment.