Dr Helen WEBBERLEY (3657058) DETERMINATION ON IMMEDIATE ORDER – 30/06/2022

1. Having determined to suspend Dr Webberley’s registration, the Tribunal has considered, in accordance with Rule 17(2)(o) of the Rules, whether her registration should be subject to an immediate order.

Submissions 

For the GMC

2. Mr Simon Jackson QC referred the Tribunal to paragraphs 172 - 178 of the SG. He also referred the Tribunal to paragraphs 30, 32, 44, 45 and 46 of its determination on sanction. He submitted that if an immediate order were not in place, and Dr Webberley were to appeal the decision of the Tribunal, she would be entitled to continue to work until the outcome of such appeal was known.

3. He said that if Dr Webberley were to return to clinical practice in this area of medicine, and if faced with similar pressures, for example a heavy workload and requests from patients for treatment, there was no way of managing any risk of repetition. In consequence, he submitted that it was necessary for the protection of the public to impose an immediate order of suspension.

For Dr Webberley

4. On behalf of Dr Webberley, Mr Stern QC opposed the GMC application for an immediate order. He said that the starting point was to consider the purpose of an immediate order. Mr Stern said the effect of any immediate order would be disproportionate because if Dr Webberley were to appeal, an immediate order would remove her ability to secure suitable employment until such time as the outcome of the appeal was known.

5. Mr Stern submitted that the Tribunal had no right to impose an immediate order in this case on any wider public interest grounds as the Tribunal had not imposed any substantive sanction in respect of those findings of impairment which concerned the wider public interest.

6. Mr Stern submitted that an immediate order was not necessary for the protection of the public in respect of Dr Webberley’s failure to discuss fertility with Patient C prior to treatment. He relied upon the factors to which the Tribunal referred in paragraph 31 of its determination on sanction.

The Tribunal’s Determination 

7. The Tribunal has taken account of Section 38 of the Medical Act 1983 and the relevant paragraphs of the SG in relation to when it is appropriate to impose an immediate order. Paragraph 172 of the SG states:

‘The tribunal may impose an immediate order if it determines that it is necessary to protect members of the public, or is otherwise in the public interest, or is in the best interests of the doctor…’

8. The Tribunal reminded itself of its finding in paragraph 32 of its determination on sanction that Dr Webberley needs to demonstrate to an MPT that she has the necessary insight and remediation to enable it to conclude that there is no risk of repetition. In these circumstances, it has determined that it is necessary for the protection the public to make an immediate order of suspension.

9. The substantive order of suspension, as already announced, will take effect 28 days from when notice is deemed to have been served upon Dr Webberley, unless she lodges an appeal in the interim. If she lodges an appeal, the immediate order of suspension will remain in place until such time the outcome of the appeal is known.

10. The Tribunal has revoked the interim order on Dr Webberley’s registration.

11.That concludes the case.