Harrop MPTS Hearing

[quote SigourneyHoward]@Motorina - sorry to put you on the spot here... does this existing panel have the authority to deal with any 'fall out/implications' if AH has shared confidential material (or allowed it to be shared) within this hearing or would it require the process to be started again to deal with any possible misdemeanours...?[/quote]
Sorry, just catching up. Have been working. And haven't read all the posts, so forgive me if I'm cross-posting.

The honest idea is I have no idea. It's a sufficiently extraordinary thing that it's outside all my experience.

I note that it is supposition that firstly the material has been shared at all, and secondly it was shared by Harrop. I think both those things would have to be established.

I think to draft a whole new set of charges relating to this would be difficult and time-consuming, and might disrupt the hearing being completed in the time allocated.

To put in new material at this late stage needs the permission of the panel. The defence could contest that, in which case the panel would decide whether it goes in or not. I think the test is that they have to be satisfied it is, "fair, relevant, and in the interests of justice".

One option would be not to submit the article as evidence, but simply to describe it and ask him questions. The article then wouldn't be evidence, but his response to questions about it would be.

In that case, I think it is most likely to be taken into account at the insight and remediation stage, and is likely to impact significantly on those findings and therefore on sanction.

I am fumbling, though, because this is outside all my experience. I envision all the lawyers scurryign about like a kicked anthill. They will be working late tonight!

To answer some other questions:

1. The GMC has no power to issue an injunction to prevent publication. I have literally no idea how that might be done.
2. The GMC has no power to lauch criminal proceedings.
3. Is it worth complaining? Well, as a general principle, it's always worth complaining if you're concerned about a doctor's fitness to practice. But the panel is highly unlikely to be told that a flurry of compaints have come in, and the number of complainants won't impact their decision making. This isn't trial by public outrage.

Sorry, that's all very woolly and off the top of my head - I'm genuinely astonished by this.

Yep! And has been challenged on it many, many times, usually responded with thinly veiled invective and sneers.

The Tribunal tweets have said that they do not have access to all the paperwork.

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

In a criminal trial, a witness is told not to share statements or evidence with others or go to the press in order not to contaminate the process and ensure a fair trial.

This will have happened in this case. Those brave enough to give evidence would have been asked not to share or circulate it or talk about it on the media or social media.

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.

So far as I can see, SH is not a solicitor, barrister, Legal executive or Licensed conveyancer - all of of which are protected terms.

She calls herself a lawyer or a legal consultant, which anyone can do

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.

All courts (and those tribunals that are not merely administrative but exercise the judicial power of the State) are protected by the law of contempt.

www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/contempt-court-reporting-restrictions-and-restrictions-public-access-hearings

Is MPTS administrative or judicial?

If judicial, the rules include not just witness intimidation before and during the hearing but any kind of behavior designed to punish witnesses going forward. I know the Law Commission consulted on including a whole lot of online harms inclusding Twitter behavior in to the provisions of Contempt of Court legislations - I think most recommedations were accepted?

I read it that hayden has access to everything. Astonishing given the allegations Harrop is facing.

Well, we know he was sent out to discuss it with his legal team - to discuss that and that only in a private space. So we know it has annoyed the panel.

But the 'rap sheet' is already written and has an end date that has already been extended. It won't cover this date. So the panel won't include it and it won't require further information from any witness.

What I wanted to know is could this be considered in a similar way to contempt of court? Surely the GMC would hoike him straight back into MPTS at the end of this hearing with another charge of sheer unaduterated hubris, if nothing else.

he just wants to go out in a blaze of glory and be a martyr to the wonderful cause of righteousness and glory.

I don't think he's that clever. He's just massively egotistical and childish, so it doesn't occur to him that he can be wrong. He does whatever he can to get attention.

I don't think he'll get his licence pulled simply because he hasn't been caught harming patients directly. I think a suspension is the best we can hope for.

As a panel I would want some legal advice on whether or not I could take the article into account - not so much on a GDPR perspective but more
1 - Does it demonstrate a lack of understanding of the seriousness of the allegations?
2 - Does it show a lack of insight into what is appropriate behaviour?
3 - Is there a risk that any witness may feel that they could no longer give evidence?

I don't know to what extent the panel can draw inferences from this behaviour.

Given previous equally opaque teets about being 'part of his legal team/support' it oculd be read anyway at all! Self aggrandising or factual! Who the hell knows?

So is SH talking about what appears to have been circulated to the public at the tribunal, and has subsequently appeared on Twitter, or the full information given to the legal teams? Given SH's keenness to be known as a legal expert, I read it as implying the latter, but surely the real legal team wouldn't have approved the involvement of a law graduate who happens to be chummy with Dr H.

I agree. I think that was the intention, to try to create a roar of outrage from twitter that would push the tribunal to AH's side. I can't see that working, but who the hell knows anything any more.

There's no chance that this would work. The panel won't even be allowed to read the article unless there was an application made for it to be included. When you sit on these cases you are not allowed to google, or read anything outside what you are presented with. The only information you have is what is contained in the bundles (having been agreed by the parties), submissions by counsel and witness evidence. The panel will have no idea about any online discussions and if they did have previous knowledge of Harrop and his online antics they would have to declare a conflict of interest (and they'd probably find an alternative panel member)

But what went to VICE? Some people will need firm reassurace from the MPTS on that. Not the mealy mouthed words of a self professed lawyer who is all wrapped up in the events anyway!

“The witnesses and tweets involved in the case are currently being kept anonymous, but VICE World News was sent all of the material being discussed in the tribunal, including the full dossier of allegations, witness statements, and documents defending the doctor.”

They might, but it says witness statements. I don’t know if those are A B C etc or if there are names attached, also don’t know if they’re redacted as I thought some statements were.

The good news is that lawyer on Twitter is writing left and right that she has access to all documentation and argues that none of it is confidential.

So if you have made a complaint, good luck with that

😂

Anyone fearing their data has been transferred to Vice can ask them under GDPR regs. Of course that then means you identify yourself, willingly give them your name etc. So I'd go straight to the ICO and explain why you don't want to do that and ask for their best advice. They are pretty good at thinking round and through such things.

I'd also ask the MPTS for their reassurance on the matter. They have said that individual data hasn't been used, all the witness statements etc have been anonymised. But ask them, make them aware that many women involved are watching this and fear the possibilities based on his previous behaviour.

Thank you MissLucyEyelesbarrow

That's going to get deleted isn't it. I shall say he just wants to go out in a blaze of glory and be a martyr to the wonderful cause of righteousness and glory.

He needs to read the fucking room.

Perhaps he thinks he doesn't want to wait knowing that he will be censured/struck off. He wants to get in there beforehand.

He wants to go out in a blaze of glory doesn't he, the egoistical prick.

St Adrian of Harrop, the well known martyr.

I can't understand why it wouldn't wait till after the hearing

I think the short answer is: because he's a fucking idiot.

He needs to tread carefully. I assume that his legal costs are being covered by his Medical Defence Organisation (MDO). It's likely that there is a stipulation in his policy that cover is contingent on following his lawyers' advice - which would almost certainly include not going to the media, mid-hearing. He could find himself with some very large legal bills if his MDO declines to cover further costs. He is in real danger of losing his livelihood (at least temporarily) at the very moment he incurs a large 5 figure debt.