Harrop MPTS Thread 3

[BoreOfWhabylon]

For when the last one fills up

Lets talk about what an appeal is for. An appeal isn't to add new allegations or address new concerns. A new hearing, with new charges, is for that. An appeal isn't because you don't like the outcome and want another go. The GMC can't appeal just because they know there's strong public feeling or because the witnesses (or mumsnet!) are upset about the outcome.

To appeal they'd have to try and argue that either the panel were badly wrong about how they applied the law, or that the decision they made - for example on sanction - was one that no reasonable panel could.

They'd also have to believe there was a reasonable chance of changing the final outcome. Noone is going to sign off on spending a six figure sum bringing an appeal to change the outcome on one or two charges, if the end result on sanction is going to remain the same.

Certainly on the stage one decision I just don't see that it's anywhere close to appealable. Do I see things where I might have decided differently? Sure. But I have access to different information than the panel, and don't have access to a lot of the information they do, which is clearly influencing me on that. But I don't see anything appealable about their decision making to date.

Now, I'm not a lawyer. It's possible a lawyer may see something I haven't. But right now I can't see the GMC appealing stage one.

If the panel do something daft at stage two then maybe. But we don't know that yet.

@Artichokeleaves

Ethics is certainly becoming an old fashioned concept.

There's a fair few clinicians posting here who would feel differently...

But, yes, the misconduct of one clinician tarnishes the reputation of all. Which is why panels view bringing the profession into disrepute seriously.

@Motorina- all of that is understood.

But if the panel decide that FTP is not impaired, what then? Is that subject to appeal?

@UncleTonyinahotpinkbrandbeanie (excellent accessorizing) yes. If the lawyers can argue that the panel made a decision which was manifestly wrong in law, or which no reasonable panel could. Which is a big if.

@UncleTonyinahotpinkbrandbeanie

Is this any better?

Love the new moniker and the gin, thanks. Finally someone turned up with gin. I got fed up waiting and cracked the wine open.

@UncleTonyinahotpinkbrandbeanie

The panel may not be aware, but the GMC will most definitely be aware of the strength of public feeling regarding Dr Harrop’s conduct.

It’s why I was asking about whether they have the option to appeal which would be the first option, but as Motorina says, that is their call and it would need to be signed off by a panel, going by the blurb on their website.

I agree also with the point about informing the witnesses. I’m guessing that it didn’t occur to them to tell the witnesses that their statements could be shared with people outside of the legal team, because this has never previously happened.

It was in the letter I got from the GMC. They asked me to be a witness, but i read every word of the letter and in not so small print it did say that my name and address and my statement could be made "public"*

*wrong word but cant think of correct one. Menopause strikes.

In fairness Dr Harrop did also warn witnesses that they could also find themselves subject to legal action.

@UncleTonyinahotpinkbrandbeanie

Is this any better?

I feel sick

@UncleTonyinahotpinkbrandbeanie

In fairness Dr Harrop did also warn witnesses that they could also find themselves subject to legal action.

The word is 'threaten' as in 'the witnesses were threatened by the defendent to try to stop them being witnesses in his trial'.

Wow that is rich - Haddock warning women not to become vexatious litigants. Seems he approves when it's his best girl doing it.

@Maskless

Wow that is rich - Haddock warning women not to become vexatious litigants. Seems he approves when it's his best girl doing it.

That made me chuckle.

@Motorina Please could I ask you (sorry if I've missed this somewhere else on the thread) When the hearing is finally concluded - will all the info be released into the public domain with the findings?

You mentioned the panel will have access to information we won't. I understand of course that details of issues like AH's personal health wouldn't be released to the public, but would there be any other pertinent info disclosed to the panel that the public don't know about or only know about "after the event" so to speak?

I completely understand why personal issues like a clinician's mental health are kept out of the public domain, but then surely the personal issues and health of witnesses shouldn't be "fair game"?
I know the witnesses are "anonymised" but lots of people (friends and family plus feminism is a village after all ) know who they are but may not know some details included in statements etc.

Sorry, I'm trying to word this carefully and it may make no sense! It's just so frustrating that a health professional facing a fitness to practice panel, can release documents containing personal details of the witnesses, to the press or to his mates. Even anonymised it's so invasive and inappropriate. And yet the person releasing this info is able to request in camera (is that the correct term) meetings for himself?

The reply from the MPTS about the panel not reading articles in the media is infuriating - this article is exactly the sort of thing that is relevant and a doctor should be held accountable for.

The injustice of it really contributes to the "one rule for them, one rule for us" feeling which we can see demonstrated on the this thread. I understand what you mean about this is exactly why we have hearings like this, one person bringing whole profession into disrepute etc.

Whichever way round you look at it, it's a bad business.

@UncleTonyinahotpinkbrandbeanie

In fairness Dr Harrop did also warn witnesses that they could also find themselves subject to legal action.

I think however that there's been ample proof of how very high the bar is set for this, and witnesses can probably crack on with a good number of cases as they wish before they need to worry.

It’s just one of many examples of the doctor’s attempted continual low-level intimidation.

As Dr Harrop made a number of admissions regarding all the witnesses then he would have no grounds for legal action.

He seems to have been provided with dodgy legal advice. Always use a regulated, qualified and insured professional.

@UncleTonyinahotpinkbrandbeanie

In fairness Dr Harrop did also warn witnesses that they could also find themselves subject to legal action.

I also don't like a GP basically warning, threatening and trying to dissuade members of the public from reporting concerns.

I believe every person who has reported concerns in this particular case has genuine concerns, not just for themselves (eg intimidation against them personally on Twitter) but for other patients that have contact with him, and the general public having to deal with a GP who displays attitudes and behaviour like this.

He obviously sees this as some sort of personal campaign against him, and says as much to the tribunal - but the complaints against him have been upheld.

So it's clear that what he sees as what he sees as "unsubstantiated and vexatious" reports are in fact genuine concerns that merited reporting as they have been upheld. And he threatened people to dissuade them from reporting their genuine concerns. How can that be in any way acceptable?

Sorry I meant to attach this!

It’s almost as if he was making a prediction...

@WeBuiltCisCityOnRabbitHoles sorry - been making ragu! Just catching up...

When the hearing is finally concluded - will all the info be released into the public domain with the findings?

What will be released is the public determination. So like the one we've already seen for stage one, which give the panel's findings on each charge, and their reasons. But this will cover misconduct, impairment and sanction.

(There will also be a private determination which will include any relevant info on, for example, Harrop's health, which we won't see.)

I wouldn't be surprised if the GMC also does a short press release.

That's all we'll see, unless any of the witnesses chose to publish anything.

We know that the panel has an approx 400 page evidence bundle (the contents of which were summarised in the stage one determination) which we won't see. Would a FOI request get taht, at least in a redacted form? No idea.

I completely understand why personal issues like a clinician's mental health are kept out of the public domain, but then surely the personal issues and health of witnesses shouldn't be "fair game"?

They aren't. If any of the witnesses had been called, then material relating to their health or family/personal life is overwhelmingly likely to have been heard in private and thus would only be in the private determination.

Now I know that, in this case, there is the suggestion that some private information about the witnesses has been shared more widely. That's, in my experience, unprecedented, so I don't know the law there. But the GMC wouldn't be putting health stuff about any witness into the public domain during or after the hearing.

It's just so frustrating that a health professional facing a fitness to practice panel, can release documents containing personal details of the witnesses, to the press or to his mates. Even anonymised it's so invasive and inappropriate. And yet the person releasing this info is able to request in camera (is that the correct term) meetings for himself?

Yes. I think it's an absolutely appalling way to behave.

The correct term is 'in private'. That's where the formal hearing continues but observers are excluded. Everyone keeps their jackets and ties on. 'In camera' is when the hearing stops so the panel can make their decision and write it up. Noone other the panel (and possibly a secretary, a legal advisor in those regulators that have them, and maybe a health advisor if the case relates to the registrant's health) are present. Jackets are off and cups of tea are made.

The reply from the MPTS about the panel not reading articles in the media is infuriating - this article is exactly the sort of thing that is relevant and a doctor should be held accountable for.

Ish. The statement I saw was basically "The panel won't look at anything in the media". I forget the exact words. Which is true and right. How would you feel if you were accussed of something horrendous and the jury were reading lurid accounts in the Daily Mail and factoring it into their decision? The panel can only take into account evidence which has been formally put infront of them in the hearing.

It's not clear to me that the article hasn't been submitted in evidence. It may have been. It may not. It has been referred to. It may be, should the hearing be moved to the sanction stage, it will factor in then. I certainly think a good case could be made for submitting it as evidence. It's ultimately a decision for the barristers wether they want to go down that route.

The injustice of it really contributes to the "one rule for them, one rule for us" feeling which we can see demonstrated on the this thread.

I get it. I think that's partly because the panel must be meticulously fair to both sides. Noone on this thread (including me, although I am trying to word discussions about the process in a way which is fair) feels like being particularly fair to Harrop, because of, in the words of the panel, he has tweeted in a way which is "provocative" and "misogynistic". So where we are emotionally and where the panel has to be legally are very different.

All I can say is wait for the final decision, as I am pretty confident that people will feel happier then.

Whichever way round you look at it, it's a bad business.

Agreed

Obviously a few steps away but if it wss found his fitness to practice was impaired, and if he was suspended, would that be without pay?

Yes.

Presumably if Brownlow wanted to keep him on as an unqualified healthcare worker they could, that other case showed the suspended doctor working in a covid testing centre.
Or maybe Webberley has an admin role for him?

Assuming there's a suspension of course

@KittenKong

It’s almost as if he was making a prediction...

Or a threat...

I don’t think he’ll be found to be impaired despite the admissions. It’ll be seen as a Twitter spat that got out of hand.

From the outside it looks as though the GMC didn’t run the case well. Had they included the various grovelling apologies Harrop had to make to a woman he falsely accused of spitting, the apology to J K Rowling and his accusations about Julie Bindel being a people trafficker then the panel would have seen a much clearer picture emerging.

It’s a shame nobody alerted them to the TERF badge article until it was too late, because that demonstrates that Harrop cannot be trusted not to bring the profession into disrepute on Instagram either!

However he’ll still get a warning if not found impaired. And we’ll see you all back here again in 3 years time.

I'm not so sure.

Look at the last document released by the Tribunal.

If you look at the not proven charges, that's where we have the first insight into how the Panel view AH's behaviour.

Even when the charges are not proven, for many of them there is still condemnation of his behaviour. The language they use is pretty strong.

Then start to extrapolate that over the charges that have been proven and the volume of them.

All from a person who not only persisted in that behaviour after two warnings, sent a mocking tweet about the very process he now finds himself participating in and then talks to the "press".

My money is on a suspension after having read lots of tribunals on the MTPS website - on the grounds his fitness to practice is impaired because he brought the profession into disrepute and has demonstrated minimal awareness/understanding/remorse/insight and a suspension will give him an opportunity to enlighten himself - something he'll have to prove to another panel.

BreadInCaptivity I hope that your prediction is right. With all of my heart.