Helen Webberley is at the Royal Courts of Justice today (14 March 2023) - Tribunal Tweets

Yes, remit means the judge would send it back to MPT to rehear some or all of the case (could be all, including findings of fact, or just the sanction). The alternative is for the judge to make their own decision on findings and sanction in place of the MPT decision.

FFS! They're talking about a girl of eleven!

AB [Appellants barrister, ie representing Webberley] - back to the email chronology. Series of emails, discussions of fertility, PC [Patient C, the child] adamant that doesn’t want children, and discussions of egg harvesting, would need to return to female puberty. 2 points demonstrated: PC’s mother does understand the implications on fertility…
That these effects are reversible. And mother understands that.
Email from HW about the ongoing discussions of egg harvesting, fertility etc. Response from mother: wouldn’t that be difficult? Question never really answered by HW according GMC.

And of course the whole nonsense about reversibility is moot, since puberty blockers almost inevitably lead to cross-sex hormones and infertility, which is accepted somewhere else in these transcripts. (IIRC, it says something such as, to proceed on the basis that infertility is very likely.)

Absolutely monstrous!

These bits are interesting. Does "remit" mean that the case would be reheard does anyone know?

J: Well, I don't only do easy cases. To what extent can I allow my own view of someone 10 years old might understand about fertility? Am struggling a bit; don't know much about the child. All anonymous but ... child is adopted, birth mother heroin addict. Child is dyslexic.

AB: There is a finding of assessment of competence.
J: Yes but re fertility ...
AB: Psychologist had spent some time with C before HW say. Tribunal refer to this.
J: True.

AB: It would not be about permissibility of your deciding, it's about the correctness of the MPTS findings. I say, overwhelmingly possible for you to decide that HW should have had face to face, but, that HW's own course also acceptable.
J: Yes and 200 mile trip. Easier by email

AB: But tribunal don't put the emails into right context.
J: You are not saying I should remit to MPTS for reconsideration?
AB: No
J: Mr Mant, for GMC? If I find error, should case be remitted?
[missed answer]

J: If this were erasure not 2 months. Very important case. Think I can't send it back. Can I have copy of each consent forms, and that sections of the rulings that pertain to them.

Thanks for the heads up on this, I'd have missed it otherwise.

Her argument really does seem as you say to contradict itself. I would expect that argument to come from a prosecutor not a defender.
What these people have done in the name of virue signalling is beyond words.

Their angle seems to be that PC was Gillick competent but chose to delegate the consent process to the parents. But as GMC lawyer points out there was no evidence that this happened.

I'd forgotten that the expert for HW had maintained that PBs are fully reversible. Did the GMC not have their own witness to contradict that evidence? Surely they wouldn't get away with PBs are "fully reversible" now. Does anyone still hold this position?

Here's the morning and afternoon sessions on Thread Reader...

threadreaderapp.com/thread/1635585082747412482.html

threadreaderapp.com/thread/1635639531041947650.html

It's ended and judgment is reserved.

Early on in the tweet thread webberly's barrister says:

"PC was 11 years old, how can fertility be reasonably discussed with a child that age but this is the ‘failing’ that lead to HW’s finding of misconduct, impairment and sanctions."

It's amazing to me. I think HW's barrister is arguing 1) it's not possible to reasonably discuss implications of lost fertility with a child if 11 2) therefore it's no 'failing' if the clinician doesn't discuss it 3) but still the 11 year old can consent to losing fertility.