Harrop MPTS Hearing

[ItsAllGoingToBeFine]

I thought this may be of interest:

www.mpts-uk.org/hearings-and-decisions/medical-practitioners-tribunals/dr-adrian-harrop-nov-21

The tribunal will inquire into the allegation that from 10 May 2018 to 23 November 2019, Dr Harrop inappropriately used his Twitter account to post tweets that were offensive and/or insulting and/or inappropriate in nature and some of which were intended to intimidate.

Seem to be arguing which tweets were direct about E and E family at the moment, comes across as squirming to get off the hook.

Thanks to everyone for the clarification, as I was a bit lost, too.

And, yes. The Arlene Foster judgement was a pleasure to read.

Super difficult to follow what is actually going on from the live tweets today - are they quibbling as to which tweets are included in the complaint?!? Surely that is already laid out. Why does anyone need time today to read through the tweets - have they not done their homework? And does AH think he can get off on some technicality that his behaviour was inappropriate, but not intended to be offensive, regardless of whether his targets were offended or not? Which is the opposite of how things usually work in law by my understanding - if you feel threatened, then it’s considered possible abuse/assault/harrassment regardless of intention, if the victim perceives the crime as motivated by a protected characteristic then it’s hate crime, perception of the victim is prioritised over intent of the perpetrator. But in this case they are arguing the opposite? Have I misunderstood?

It looks like they are not denying that all the tweets are inappropriate. Just that some of them are not inappropriate and they are taking the time to separate them out to make things clear.

@Cwenthryth

Super difficult to follow what is actually going on from the live tweets today - are they quibbling as to which tweets are included in the complaint?!? Surely that is already laid out. Why does anyone need time today to read through the tweets - have they not done their homework? And does AH think he can get off on some technicality that his behaviour was inappropriate, but not intended to be offensive, regardless of whether his targets were offended or not? Which is the opposite of how things usually work in law by my understanding - if you feel threatened, then it’s considered possible abuse/assault/harrassment regardless of intention, if the victim perceives the crime as motivated by a protected characteristic then it’s hate crime, perception of the victim is prioritised over intent of the perpetrator. But in this case they are arguing the opposite? Have I misunderstood?

It is confusing! I think what has happened is a misunderstanding about what AH had admitted. So it's not that they haven't all done their homework but, naturally, as the GMC barrister, your preparation is going to focus on the charges that weren't already admitted - there's no point prepping to prove charges that AH had already held up his hands to (as RP thought).

So the rug has been pulled out from under RP's feet. And the judges seem to be blaming him for needing extra time, even though it's actually - as far as I can understand - their cock up. No doubt the barristers on this thread would argue that it was ever thus 😉

@Cwenthryth

Super difficult to follow what is actually going on from the live tweets today - are they quibbling as to which tweets are included in the complaint?!? Surely that is already laid out. Why does anyone need time today to read through the tweets - have they not done their homework? And does AH think he can get off on some technicality that his behaviour was inappropriate, but not intended to be offensive, regardless of whether his targets were offended or not? Which is the opposite of how things usually work in law by my understanding - if you feel threatened, then it’s considered possible abuse/assault/harrassment regardless of intention, if the victim perceives the crime as motivated by a protected characteristic then it’s hate crime, perception of the victim is prioritised over intent of the perpetrator. But in this case they are arguing the opposite? Have I misunderstood?

Looking at the charges, charge 2 says:

From 10 May 2018 to 23rd November 2019 you inappropriately used your Twitter account to post tweets that were offensive and/or insulting and/or inappropriate in nature, as set out in Schedule 2.

We don't have sight of schedule 2 but presumably this is the document that contains all the tweets.

Charge 2 is worded "and/or" and Harrop will have admitted or denied that these tweets were inappropriate and/or offensive and/or insulting.

It is important that everyone is clear about what he has and has not admitted to.

It is not unusual for charges to be worded in the alternative like this. It give the registrant the opportunity to make partial admissions but also it give the panel the opportunity to find something proved that they might not have if it was worded differently.

In the long run clarifying things at this stage makes everything run more smoothly later on.

Some argument about AH being cross examined, a health issue AH has has been mooted, apparently he is likely to be cross examined for 3 days?

Interesting, GP wants to "avoid a show trial" which is why he isn't cross-examining the witnesses. Obviously doesn't want to give them a platform. He's prepared to risk not testing their evidence / credibility.

"GP Doesn't avoid you looking at credibility. Everyone has polarised feelings ... about this which hightens emotions. Wants to avoid a show trial. Look at what actually happened and you need to determine the reality and I'm happy to take this risk"

It is not unusual for charges to be worded in the alternative like this. It give the registrant the opportunity to make partial admissions but also it give the panel the opportunity to find something proved that they might not have if it was worded differently

But didn't the panel summarise incorrectly, thus wrong-footing RP?

Adjourned until 0930 tomorrow. Presumably AH will be cross examined from then.

IIRC some of the tweets about heading out for some golf were particularly sinister because of previous charges/convictions relating to one of AH's SM friends in which a golf club had been used as a weapon.

Am I remembering this correctly (and if not then apologies) and if so has that been raised?

@MissLucyEyelesbarrow

It is not unusual for charges to be worded in the alternative like this. It give the registrant the opportunity to make partial admissions but also it give the panel the opportunity to find something proved that they might not have if it was worded differently

But didn't the panel summarise incorrectly, thus wrong-footing RP?

Actually yes. It's Charge 14 isn't it? I got the wrong one Charge 14 is quite confusingly worded. I'm not surprised there was confusion!

It's been raised Repent, am sure it will be again in the cross examination.

In the case of a judge not knowing how Twitter works, can’t anybody representing (sorry if that’s not the correct term) speak up and say “actually, that’s not how it works, it works like this…”

@RedDogsBeg

It's been raised Repent, am sure it will be again in the cross examination.

Ah thanks.

It could be raised SoniaFouler but if you're dealing with a judge pontificating on lots of different strands of the case then sometimes counsel have to engage with the two or three that best advance their case rather than trying to tackle everything. Something it's best to keep one's presentation on the core issues and resist broadening the fronts of discussion and end up with a flabby case that's lost its focus.

It's also best to resist telling a judge they're wrong unless you've got a clear idea of the costs and benefits of arguing the point. A pissed off judge is less likely to find for you if the decision is finely balanced.

GP's decision not to cross-examine the witnesses is a high risk strategy. Whilst it does not prevent the panel considering the credibility of those witnesses, it certainly does, or at least should, prevent GP from raising credibility as an issue in closing. If, for example, he wants to invite the panel to find one or more of them to be lying or exaggerating, he needs to put that to them in cross so that their responses can be noted.

@nauticant

The tweets reporting the hearing aren't that clear (twitter is a very limited medium and reporting live speech on it must be very difficult), but I get the impression that the panel view tweets directed at an individual simply to be messaging between two people. This is absolutely not the point of twitter, it is to broadcast the exchange to onlookers, possibly in very large numbers, which means that if someone under attack holds up, it doesn't mean that the attack is without consequences because part of the intention is to get the mesasge out to the onlookers: you might be attacked next.

If this was about an exchange exclusively between individuals you'd be looking at something like email, DMs, or whatever.

Most of the free speech/online abuse cases I've seen reported show judges simply failing to understand how social media, and especially twitter, works. They often seem to see twitter as a point-to-point messaging system.

You’re absolutely right about the nature and purpose of Twitter, which is why I found one of JP’s (of I know something you don’t know fame) recent tweets in defence of AH so laughable.

It was something along the lines of how AH was minding his own business and having a private conversation when someone decided to barge on and challenge him (I think the someone is one of the “letters” in this hearing).

I wish I had the energy to find it upthread, sorry, but the point is that all this ‘minding his own business’ in a ‘private conversation’ was on...yep...Twitter.

Beggars belief.

@LittleGreySquirrel

GP's decision not to cross-examine the witnesses is a high risk strategy. Whilst it does not prevent the panel considering the credibility of those witnesses, it certainly does, or at least should, prevent GP from raising credibility as an issue in closing. If, for example, he wants to invite the panel to find one or more of them to be lying or exaggerating, he needs to put that to them in cross so that their responses can be noted.

It'd be interesting to read the witness statements. If they are quite dry and factual it would be quite hard to not take them at face value.

Does anyone know if the witnesses are not cross-examined does this mean that the panel don't have the chance to question them?

I've a feeling there was a similar situation in the HW hearing where a witness (Pt A?) was not cross-examined for the same reason but the panel was able to question them anyway.

Okay, I think what's going on is this...

Charge 14 is the one that they've expanded the date from April 19 to June 20. Thus adding an extra year of tweets. Most of charge 14 is explicit about which tweet it's referring to (on this day you tweeted that thing which...) but 14.g. is really woolly - talking about just a "significant number of tweets" referring to E, her family, and/or her employer.

There were 55 tweets which the GMC say are covered by that charge.

Harrop says some are refer to E etc, but some don't.

The GMC was sent off to produce a list of all those tweets, all numbered. They produced it, and Harrop has gone through it and said which ones he admitts refer to E, and their family, work...

I think (not entirely sure) he is also disputing that any of them were inappropriate.

It's narrowing down exactly what Harrop is accused of and what he admits. As @Signalbox has said, that's not unusual at this stage.

In terms of this @Cwenthryth:

And does AH think he can get off on some technicality that his behaviour was inappropriate, but not intended to be offensive, regardless of whether his targets were offended or not? Which is the opposite of how things usually work in law by my understanding - if you feel threatened, then it’s considered possible abuse/assault/harrassment regardless of intention, if the victim perceives the crime as motivated by a protected characteristic then it’s hate crime, perception of the victim is prioritised over intent of the perpetrator. But in this case they are arguing the opposite? Have I misunderstood?

Remember, this isn't a criminal court. It's not alleged that any crime has been committed, and the tribunal doesn't have the authority to decide that. So legislation around hate crimes isn't relevant.

The chair has already made it clear that the standard he/she will be deciding this on is whether the tweets were "objectively" inappropriate, offensive, threatening... so whether an ordinary person on the Clapham Omnibus would find them so.

(Yes, these things are put in terms of the ordinary person on the Clapham Omnibus, because lawyers are like that. He (definitely he!) probably wears a bowler hat whilst reading his paper. Don't blame me.)

The Chair has already made it clear that "Their feelings are important but not determinant". Whether the targets of the tweets felt threatened etc will be taken into account but, ultimately, the panel will make their own best assessment of whether the tweets were objectively offensive.

Again, this is normal. And panellists are very rarely daft - if something is offensive they're likely to find it so.

Does anyone know if the witnesses are not cross-examined does this mean that the panel don't have the chance to question them?

The panel can question witnesses who have not been cross examined. The chair has made it clear that they have no questions for B, D or E. This is actually a good sign - it suggests that the panel doesn't have any matters about their evidence that they wish to clarify.

I assume, if the intent is to move to Harrop tomorrow, then the GMC's case has closed and so no GMC witnesses will be questioned by anyone. It's now the defence turn. Harrop is giving evidence but it's not clear to me whether there are any more defence witnesses.

I honestly don't see how any doctor could get away with this? Particularly when you think about certain women have been arrested and charged for recently.

I remember thinking at the time that purely from a time point of view, the amount of time AH was spending on Twitter, regardless of what he was actually posting, was crazy!

I sincerely hope he is turning up in that satin suit he's wearing in the Mail article.

That's a pretty offensive starter for 10.

@Motorina thanks for that. I was trying to work it out and getting in a right old muddle! :D

I'd add, I have every sympathy for that chair. He's looked at charge 14.g and thought, "There are 55 tweets. For each one, we have to decide whether or not it referred to E. Then we have to decide whether it was inappropriate. THen (charge 15) we have to decide if it was intended to intimidate or was part of a campaign of bullying. That's over 200 decisions, each one we have to vote on. Each one we have to give a reason for. Give me coffee, now!"

And he's done his best to make at least some of that the problem of the two parties. By getting Harrop to state which ones referred to E (Halving the dispute! Halving the decision making!) he's reduced the drafting the panel have to do significantly.

And clarified what actually is in dispute, which helps everything run more smoothly.