Harrop MPTS Thread 3

[BoreOfWhabylon]

For when the last one fills up

@PronounssheRa

Can it really just be allowed to pass without comment or censure?

I'm hoping it will be taken into account when they consider if Harrop has developed insight and is remorseful of his actions

Thing is, I'm not clear exactly how much the Panel members have been told about the actual content of the Vice article. The mass email that the MPTS sent out to members of the public who alerted MPTS to the existence of the article stated that the Panel members hadn't read the article and wouldn't be reading it during the course of the hearing, although they were now aware of it.

So if the Panel hasn't read it, they're not going to have seen Hunte's paragraph about having been passed the papers including witness statements.

The discussion that the Panel did have about it was very short - 15 minutes I think? I'll have to go back and look.

It's a bit muddy (to me) as to what will actually be the consequences of the leaker's actions re the Vice article, if any. Does anyone at MPTS care who leaked the witness statements? Were they even technically 'leaked', according to the MPTS's rules? What are the rules?

The witnesses have had confidentiality impressed upon them throughout. GMC correspondence - even simple update emails - stated that there was an expectation of confidentiality during proceedings with a caution not to discuss matters publicly or with others wherever possible. My understanding is that, whilst it would not be unlawful to break that, it would show very poor judgement. Had the witnesses given an interview mid-proceedings then that would, not unreasonably, be construed as an "orchestrated campaign." They have not. Instead their autonomy was violated by the disclosure of confidential and sensitive information to third parties including a male who has a lengthy history of causing difficulties for numerous people. I consider it deeply abusive behaviour and yet more evidence of someone who doesn't grasp boundaries.

I fully expect that, once the decision is made, that the witnesses will be saying much more.

I've gone back to Thread 2, it (the Vice article) is discussed in posts on the 18th Nov - in particular see the post at 16.36 for the tweets.

I think a lot of us felt that there were many questions unanswered tbh.

@DrLouiseJMoody, I can well imagine that there will be questions being asked of the GMC, the MPTS and the Professional Standards Authority after the hearing, notably about the witness statements and the inappropriate passing around by someone of confidential information.

At least things are predictable. I know at least one of the witnesses didn't disclose their employer in their statement (just known to the GMC) precisely because of who was likely to see it without any good reason. Their manager is completely on their side, but the fewer abusive men they have to reply to about a "transphobe" in the workplace the better.

It's beyond me why some are gloating that no intimidation was found. Dr Harrop has already admitted to one count and over thirty other charges. That's bad enough. There's just no way to spin this into a win whatever the outcome.

I think the witnesses might want to consider a written complaint to both the ICO (over the VICE article) and his employer. It's clear that Dr Harrop cannot be trusted with confidential information.

Can any sanction be applied preventing him from treating the witnesses and their families?

But then you have a situation where the GMC knows that he’s unfit and cannot be trusted to treat certain people, so how can they let him loose on the rest of the community?

Thing is - there will be potential patients (whether they are GC or just hate loathesome little bullies) who would feel uneasy being treated by someone like him. Someone who has been hailed up in front of the GNC for bullying and potentially threatening behaviour. Sow one who can’t keep a cool head or civil tongue. Someone you can’t trust 100% to have your best interest at heart (with his t* repellent badge).

Someone so immature they think they can say what they like, look you in the eye and deny it, then when shown evidence say ‘oopsy my bad - I won’t do it again...’ with fingers crossed behind their back - or continue to deny it in the manner of a small child whose hands and face are covered in chocolate and biscuit crumbs who swear that they didn’t eat the Jaffa cakes (it was the dog/baby/bad man who then ran away).

Has it become apparent how some people have stated they've seen all related documents including witness statements for valid reasons, where those valid reasons are not in any way obvious to the outside observer?

No one has to accept treatment from any doctor - the one exception being psychiatric patients detained under the MHA, but they can only be forced to accept psychiatric treatment, not treatment from GPs or other types of doctor.

On the whole, it's best to avoid treating any patient whom you can't care for objectively, be it family/close friends or people with whom you have had conflicts outside work. Obviously, this may not always be possible - if you're the only doctor in A&E and they're having a heart attack, your duty is to treat them (unless they refuse to let you). And I am sure that AH will be read the Riot Act by his lawyers/MDO/appraiser/ employer not to interact with the witnesses in any way, let alone to treat them (barring unlikely emergency scenarios).

The boasts are that such documents have been passed on "lawfully."

It would be lawful for me to use my platform to disseminate certain legal documents. That doesn't mean it's good judgement to do so. And I am not someone with responsibilities to patients.

The real reason for sharing the case files, I suspect, is to continue to intimidate, harass, and place the witnesses in fear. It's certainly not for honourable means.

But is it lawful? Surely in say a criminal court, it wouldn't be?

An Twitter account harassing the witnesses says it’s public record.

They could've seen the documents without publicly airing it on Twitter, though. And letting it constitute even more complaints against Harrop.

As the saying goes, with friends like those...

I wonder if the Vice could be compelled to say who gave them the papers? Or would it be 'protecting our source'. They had no legitimate right to receive them.

@iklboo

I wonder if the Vice could be compelled to say who gave them the papers? Or would it be 'protecting our source'. They had no legitimate right to receive them.

Firstly, the circumstances under which journalists can be forced to reveal sources are extremely limited.

Secondly, no one has any control over what a 3rd party choose to send them. So there is no such thing as needing a legitimate right to receive any document. Soliciting someone to leak a document to you is different, but I doubt that Vice have done so in this case - I imagine that AH and his chums contacted them, rather than the other way round (though it remains unclear whether AH personally leaked the tribunal documents).

(though it remains unclear whether AH personally leaked the tribunal documents).

And I think that's the problem.

I have no idea how you would begin to prove this. I can't see Hunte giving up his source and thus far Vice haven't published anything that's not in the public domain already.

I suppose one option, if he's before a tribunal again in the future would be to ask him under oath if he did.

@BreadInCaptivity

(though it remains unclear whether AH personally leaked the tribunal documents).

And I think that's the problem.

I have no idea how you would begin to prove this. I can't see Hunte giving up his source and thus far Vice haven't published anything that's not in the public domain already.

I suppose one option, if he's before a tribunal again in the future would be to ask him under oath if he did.

I'm not clear that he has done anything wrong, at least in terms of the Law. My understanding (though IANAL) is that defendants in tribunals or trials have pretty broad discretion to share the material such as witness statements.

It was unwise of him to share the material, and I'm sure his legal team face-palmed when they saw the Vice article, but I'm not clear that he has broken any law or rule.

@Motorina

I used to work in an out of hours service. The patients there don’t know you from Adam. They are literally trusting you with the safety and well being of their kids. Or with their most intimate secrets.

That’s why ‘reputation of the profession’ matters. It’s about trust.

Motorina, i'd love to know you in real life.

You'd always be great company.

I don't believe you are correct to say that there is an expectation of confidentiality WRT to witness statements that are used in a tribunal.

I’m just going by what the GMC say to witnesses. That there is an expectation of confidentiality on all parties.

Let’s switch things up. Say you have a doctor accused of sexually assaulting a patient.

It would not be acceptable for that doctor to attempt to defend himself in the media by pointing out that the witness works in the soft porn industry, features in a commercial for Codferry’s Constellation chocolate and therefore cannot be trusted.

@UncleTonyinahotpinkbra

I don't believe you are correct to say that there is an expectation of confidentiality WRT to witness statements that are used in a tribunal.

I’m just going by what the GMC say to witnesses. That there is an expectation of confidentiality on all parties.

Let’s switch things up. Say you have a doctor accused of sexually assaulting a patient.

It would not be acceptable for that doctor to attempt to defend himself in the media by pointing out that the witness works in the soft porn industry, features in a commercial for Codferry’s Constellation chocolate and therefore cannot be trusted.

I don't understand this analogy - sorry.

WRT the statements, as I have said, IANAL. However, it is my understanding that witness statements that are used in a tribunal or criminal trial are usually a matter of public record. It is also my understanding that, in order to ensure a fair trial/hearing, the defendant has pretty broad discretion about sharing the material to be used in his case. The idea, I believe, is that he mustn't be constrained in seeking advice that might assist him.

To be honest, I think before chasing down different avenues, it's far better to simply wait and see what the outcome of the Tribunal is.

It's possible that there may be little need for making any further/different complaints.

Not been following super closely, but weren't the witness statements heavily redacted during the tribunal?

If that's the case, would it not be very inappropriate for AH or anyone else involved to have sent potentially unredacted statements to Vice?

I think it's agreed that it's very inappropriate... but not actually illegal. That's my understanding, anyway.