A GP who ran an online clinic for transgender patients is waiting for a High Court judge’s ruling after challenging a tribunal decision to impose a two-month suspension.
Helen Webberley, founder of a website called GenderGP, was found to have committed serious misconduct by a Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service panel in June 2022.
On Tuesday, Dr Webberley, from Abergavenny, Monmouthshire, staged an appeal at a High Court hearing in London and argued that the tribunal had made errors.
Mr Justice Jay, who heard arguments from lawyers representing Dr Webberley and the General Medical Council, said he would deliver a ruling on the appeal on a date to be fixed.
Errors were made. Findings of fact were wrong. The judgment on misconduct was wrong. The conclusion on sanction was wrong.— Jamas Hodivala KC
“Errors were made,” Jamas Hodivala KC, who led Dr Webberley’s legal team, told the judge.
“Findings of fact were wrong. The judgment on misconduct was wrong. The conclusion on sanction was wrong.”
A barrister representing the General Medical Council told Mr Justice Jay that Dr Webberley’s appeal should be dismissed.
Peter Mant said there had been a “proper evidential basis” for the tribunal’s findings.
Mr Mant outlined the background to the case in a written argument and said Dr Webberley was a GP who provided services to transgender patients and ran a website called GenderGP.
He told the judge that allegations against Dr Webberley concerned her treatment of “three transgender children or adolescents and various other matters”.
Mr Mant said the sanction imposed related to “one head of charge, concerning one patient”.
That patient was not named at the hearing but identified as “Patient C”.
Mr Mant said “Patient C” was a teenager “assigned female at birth” who identified as male.
“The misconduct for which the sanction was imposed concerned failure to provide good clinical care to a transgender child (“Patient C”) in not discussing the risks before commencing treatment with puberty blockers,” Mr Mant told the judge.
“The tribunal found that suspension was necessary to protect the public as the appellant did not have insight into her failings.”
