Harrop MPTS Thread 3

[BoreOfWhabylon]

For when the last one fills up

Yes indeed!

Tribunal tweet are doing a wonderful job. And their efforts are greatly appreciated. My fault for treating it like a transcript.

A few other things are of interest to me, but I'll keep my powder dry on those.

Yes, let's wait until it's all over.

Slight tangent but things I would love to know....

• are the GMC legal team reading this thread?

• do members of any tribunal enjoy bathroom breaks, not just for obvious reasons but the opportunity to "pull faces" after hours of neutral facial control?

• are the tribunal tweets volunteers touch typists/fast typists? I'm flummoxed by how they do what they do, as well as they do especially on Twitter?

• how many "do's" is acceptable in one sentence?

Also I would like to request that this thread is closed again tonight.
The alternative is that it could get shut down completely
Cue bono

Maybe a good idea but I note our late night visitor from yesterday has yet to return.

Also less action on Twitter.

Take from that what you will from the reaction to todays proceedings.

I think MNHQ would have done so by now if they were going to RedShoe.

Placemarking.

Is it only Haddock who is able to appeal and is it only the sanction which can be appealed? Or can the FTP ruling be appealed as well?

www.mpts-uk.org/hearings-and-decisions/hearing-types-and-how-they-work/appeals

I have said this on an earlier thread but I would urge anybody with a bit of time to go on the tribunal website and read a few cases.
You can see how the whole process works and also get a sense of what plays well and what doesn't in terms of defence. It's not uncommon for doctors to return a number of times to demonstrate remediation before getting a licence back. You will also see how the tribunal responds to criminal convictions - drink driving and speeding are common. Child pornography much less so but is a straightforward erasure. However some of the most complex are about non criminal matters which are deemed to be outside professional behaviour.

Looks like either side can appeal within 28 days - although the doctor can only appeal if he or she is found impaired. So AH can't appeal against having made his admissions, should he now regret having made them for some reason?

That's my reading of the MPTS rules in Bore's link anyway. It's early, I may be mistaken.

Awaiting updates.

@SpindlesWhorl

Looks like either side can appeal within 28 days - although the doctor can only appeal if he or she is found impaired. So AH can't appeal against having made his admissions, should he now regret having made them for some reason?

That's my reading of the MPTS rules in Bore's link anyway. It's early, I may be mistaken.

Yes, either side can appeal. As can the Professional Standards Authority, in effect representing the broader public interest, if they think the decision has been too light.

He can only appeal if found impaired, but that doesn't mean he can only appeal the impairment decision. People can and do appeal facts found proved.

However, an appeal isn't the opportunity to have another bite at the cherry. Appeals can only be made on the grounds that the panel made some major cockup in their interpretation of the law, or their final decision was one no reasonable panel would make.

It's a high bar.

Appealling on the grounds he made admissions, having been fully advised by an experienced legal team, and now wants to change his mind because he thinks the next panel might go soft on him? Uhhh, no. That wouldn't be a goer.

@AlfonsoTheUnrepentant no updates expected til Monday lunchtime. Come on in though. There's tea and cake and chatting.

People can and do appeal facts found proved.

But not unproven charges.

What about if a panel makes a statement that is patently and can be proven false.

One example being the ‘legal advice’ given by Doctor Harrop.

It was incorrect. Contributors to a legal Crowdfunder would not be liable for third party costs. This is a fact. The panel ruled that this factually incorrect statement was correct.

If the panel base a fitness to practice assessment based on a set of their own untested assumptions and prejudices about a witness, how does this protect the public from a rogue doctor?

What about if a panel makes a statement that is patently and can be proven false.

One example being the ‘legal advice’ given by Doctor Harrop.

It was incorrect. Contributors to a legal Crowdfunder would not be liable for third party costs. This is a fact. The panel ruled that this factually incorrect statement was correct.

I think what this amounts to is that the GMC didn't prove their case. The panel were not "provided with any evidence that the assertion made was factually inaccurate, or that medical practitioners were precluded from making such assertions." A panel are unlikely to find something proved if there is no evidence. It is for the GMC to prove their case.

@UncleTonyinahotpinkbra on the legal advice charge, you've misinterpreted the panel's position. It's quite nuanced and carefully written. It breaks down as:

1. It was accepted that the tweet was made and was intended to discourage people from giving money.
2. The panel received no evidence at all that the contents of the tweet were factually wrong. This meant it couldn't decide the tweet was factually wrong.
3. It was therefore left having to decide if discouraging people from supporting a legal case against your friends was inappropriate. It decided it was not.

Point 2. is quite important. The panel are not entitled to take into account their own preexisting knowledge on whether crowdfunder supporters are liable for third party costs. There has to be evidence to support this. The GMC presented no evidence to that effect. The burden of proof falls on the prosecution (always, in all courts). If they didn't prove somethign then the panel can't decide that it did.

In this case, they didn't present the evidence to prove that his advice was incorrect in law.

The panel made that decision not out of prejudice, but due to a lack of evidence before them.

@UncleTonyinahotpinkbra

People can and do appeal facts found proved.

But not unproven charges.

What about if a panel makes a statement that is patently and can be proven false.

One example being the ‘legal advice’ given by Doctor Harrop.

It was incorrect. Contributors to a legal Crowdfunder would not be liable for third party costs. This is a fact. The panel ruled that this factually incorrect statement was correct.

If the panel base a fitness to practice assessment based on a set of their own untested assumptions and prejudices about a witness, how does this protect the public from a rogue doctor?

Glorious user name

Regarding the handing over of the file with all the case and witness details to Vice magazine - if this was a court of law would it not be contempt of court and treated very seriously?
Can it really just be allowed to pass without comment or censure?

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

[quote Motorina]@AlfonsoTheUnrepentant no updates expected til Monday lunchtime. Come on in though. There's tea and cake and chatting.[/quote]
Thanks! I'll be there.

@UncleTonyinahotpinkbra
Just sayin'

Contributors to a legal Crowdfunder would not be liable for third party costs. This is a fact. The panel ruled that this factually incorrect statement was correct.

Actually this isn't clear cut. Crowd justice say on their site:
Risks of funding litigation
In our view UK case law indicates that pure funders – Backers who don’t have a personal interest in the Case, don't stand to benefit from it and don’t control the course of the Case – will not typically have any liability beyond their initial Pledge. Like any existing practice based on law, this could change. In any case we are obliged to emphasise that we do not give, and this is not, legal advice, and should not be construed as such – in particular, we cannot advise whether or not the Courts would see you as a pure funder or not in any particular circumstance. If you have concerns on this point you should seek independent legal advice. We make no warranties or representations as to costs or other risks of donating to any particular Case.Legislationthat came into effect in the UK in April 2015 indicates that in judicial review cases, people who donate over a certain amount may have to be identified to the courts. That amounthas been set at £3,000. This requirement could expose Backers who give over £3,000 to judicial reviews in certain instances to further costs risks. The requirement brought in by this legislation will exist whether you donate to a Case online or offline.

I had a look on my podcast app yesterday - Dr Harrop has featured on several podcasts as a special guest. How can he claim to have no awareness of GMC or NHS guidance on any of this?