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.

@Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g

twitter.com/flyinglawyer73/status/1461030215245832206?s=20

@flyinglawyer73
Replying to
@NotThatBigIan
Unlike you Ian, I do (and quite properly btw) have access to the papers. I am aware of what VICE had and their reporting is accurate and lawful. One can debate the utility of the interview but to assume it is harmful without knowing the view taken at the MPTS is premature.
5:55 PM · Nov 17, 2021

We're all worrying about nothing. SH, who identifies as a laywer, says it's all fine. Can't say I'm reassured to find that SH has a full set of these papers too.

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

@HoardingSamphireSaurus

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.

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.

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

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.

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

[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.

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.

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.

@Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g

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.

There are all sorts of complicated rules, which we would need a lawyer to explain, about what constitutes instructing a lawyer; and who is allowed to act for a defendant in courts of different types, and about which communications are legally privileged (not subject to disclosure). I very much doubt that SH is part of the legal team in that sense.

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.

@BreadInCaptivity

* Christ it's a 256 letter limit How the fuck do I get this down to that?*

I'd simply say you are concerned your details have been leaked to Vice in relation to the Harrop hearing and can they contact you.

I did that and it worked, then I saw the email address. Doh. Thank you though.

@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.

Thank you Signal for the clarification.

[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!

@Terfasaurus

He’s using the photos from this shoot for his Insta & FB avatar. It’s shameless.

The witnesses were probably obvious, but Vice has now enabled Jigsaw identification of at least one, which has now set his golfing buddy and chums on them again and will probably see a repeat/escalation of the harassment she was presumably hoping to avoid.

Interesting, jigsaw identification landed a journalist a prison sentence in Scotland.

@Sundaydance

Can someone explain the significance of the updated charge sheets please?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.