1/2
To continue this bizarre story 👀
You may need to read more than once, to digest chronology & importance of dates, but necessary to have read previous posts to make sense of it all!
NB: I can only publish extracts from correspondence as this not over yet.
Recap:
•29 Aug, my lawyer wrote to General Medical Council inviting them to withdraw their application to exclude me from FtP hearing on 25 Sept (6 Sept post).
•1 Sept, flippant response from paralegal. Counsel then sent bundle direct to Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service. (6 Sept post)
•6 Sept, Dr Prashant Jindal's team had read my online posts, and aware of counsel’s submissions.
•7 Sept, my lawyer to MPTS Senior Legal Adviser Mrs Vaishali Fitton: 'Can you please confirm the skeleton and witness statement will be before the panel when it determines the exclusion of Ms Rodoy?’
'In addition please can you confirm if Annex B and Annex C will form part of the materials before the panel when it determines the exclusion of Ms Rodoy?’ [Nonsensical reasons for tribunal recusal 17 Sept 2022]
•8 Sept @ 12.35pm, she replied: 'As I have said… the MPTS will not provide material direct to the tribunal.'
•8 Sept @ 9.50 am, counsel’s letter sent to MPTS summarising my position, that unless I was allowed representation at 11 Sept hearing we would continue with legal process to stop it.
•8 Sept @ 3.32 pm, Mrs Fitton had left for weekend hrs earlier, so correspondence taken over by Gavin Brown, General Medical Council Executive Manager. (9 Sept post)
Appreciating difficulty of position, attempting to pour oil on VERY troubled waters, inferring tribunal might now be provided w documents to support my case, Gavin wrote: 'We are not in a position to respond within the timescale specified in your letter, namely by 4.00pm today, and seek an extension to respond by no later than 4.00pm on 22 September 2023, if still necessary at that time.’
My lawyer replied: 'It is clear that you have not read our letter properly nor counsel’s Skeleton Argument. It is quite astonishing that the MPTS does not understand the effect of the Human Rights Act 1998 on its proceedings some 25 years after that Act came into force.
Our client has a right to be heard BEFORE any ruling is made about excluding her from the trial. The application to exclude her from the trial, engages her civil rights (under Art 10 of the ECHR) and she is entitled to a public hearing at which the civil limb of Art 6 is observed - ie a hearing at which the allegations against her can be answered by counsel on her behalf.
The need for more time arises only because you insist on proceeding with a hearing before considering its legality.'
Less than 40 mins later came surprise email, that both ‘my' hearing AND Jindal's substantive hearing had been postponed. (9 Sept post)
2/2
11 Sept, this to Greg Brady and Catherine Froud from paralegal Alex (sender of emails I think General Medical Council lawyers avoid putting their name to fearing I will publish) 👀
'I write to inform you that, following an application by Dr Jindal, the preliminary hearing listed to start today and the substantive hearing listed to start on 25 September 2023 have both been postponed.
The GMC opposed both applications, however the MPTS determined to grant the postponement at 16:26 on Friday.
The MPTS will provide directions for relisting in due course...'
Catherine called Alex, who verbally confirmed that Jindal’s application to postpone his 25 Sept FtP hearing was made on 6 Sept, 'strongly opposed’ by GMC lawyers.
Unable to disclose reason for Jindal's application, he said more would come to light soon.
But the really shocking disclosure - where the dates become important to note, was when Alex told Catherine, and I quote: 'The MPTS opened the door’, asking Jindal if he also wanted to apply to postpone the preliminary hearing on 11 Sept!
Not directly affecting his substantive hearing in any way, Jindal hadn't asked for this, and nor was his presence required, only his lawyers (remotely), so 100% no reason whatsoever to postpone 11-13 Sept!
Catherine emailed Alex for clarification of dates:
'The application was made on 6 September. The GMC responded in opposition on 7 September.
Â
MPTS asked Dr Jindal’s representatives to confirm if the application was also being made in respect of the preliminary hearing on 7 September. Dr Jindal’s representative confirmed it related to both the preliminary hearing and substantive hearing on 8 September.'
Â
Some of you may have already joined the dots, others may need to read my previous post again to understand the significance of dates & timing!
The General Medical Council saw no merit in Jindal’s application to postpone, presumably therefore no rational reason given, and by suggesting to Jindal that 'my' hearing also be postponed, this proves the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service agreement was nothing less than a devious move on their part.
However, they've only delayed the inevitable, because (unless GMC see sense & withdraw their unmerited application to ban me from substantive hearing) it'll be déjà vu for our lawyers!
Probably not too difficult to squeeze 'my' hearing in MPTS diary soon as it's only 3 days, but surprising if they find vacant 3 week slot in the next 6 months, so could take up to 1 year to again relist Jindal's hearing - for the THIRD time!
I've run out of adjectives to adequately describe this craziness, while Greg and Catherine, worried by General Medical Council lies and lack of transparency throughout, disgusted with Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service, unable to trust either organisation, gave their blessing for me to publish this info.
19 September
(D’you think he’d introduce me to his influential friend Rishi Sunak if I asked nicely?
www.facebook.com/drprashantjindal
)
17 September
2/2
11 Sept, this to Greg Brady and Catherine Froud from paralegal Alex (sender of emails I think General Medical Council lawyers avoid putting their name to fearing I will publish) 👀
'I write to inform you that, following an application by Dr Jindal, the preliminary hearing listed to start today and the substantive hearing listed to start on 25 September 2023 have both been postponed.
The GMC opposed both applications, however the MPTS determined to grant the postponement at 16:26 on Friday.
The MPTS will provide directions for relisting in due course...'
Catherine called Alex, who verbally confirmed that Jindal’s application to postpone his 25 Sept FtP hearing was made on 6 Sept, 'strongly opposed’ by GMC lawyers.
Unable to disclose reason for Jindal's application, he said more would come to light soon.
But the really shocking disclosure - where the dates become important to note, was when Alex told Catherine, and I quote: 'The MPTS opened the door’, asking Jindal if he also wanted to apply to postpone the preliminary hearing on 11 Sept!
Not directly affecting his substantive hearing in any way, Jindal hadn't asked for this, and nor was his presence required, only his lawyers (remotely), so 100% no reason whatsoever to postpone 11-13 Sept!
Catherine emailed Alex for clarification of dates:
'The application was made on 6 September. The GMC responded in opposition on 7 September.
Â
MPTS asked Dr Jindal’s representatives to confirm if the application was also being made in respect of the preliminary hearing on 7 September. Dr Jindal’s representative confirmed it related to both the preliminary hearing and substantive hearing on 8 September.'
Â
Some of you may have already joined the dots, others may need to read my previous post again to understand the significance of dates & timing!
The General Medical Council saw no merit in Jindal’s application to postpone, presumably therefore no rational reason given, and by suggesting to Jindal that 'my' hearing also be postponed, this proves the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service agreement was nothing less than a devious move on their part.
However, they've only delayed the inevitable, because (unless GMC see sense & withdraw their unmerited application to ban me from substantive hearing) it'll be déjà vu for our lawyers!
Probably not too difficult to squeeze 'my' hearing in MPTS diary soon as it's only 3 days, but surprising if they find vacant 3 week slot in the next 6 months, so could take up to 1 year to again relist Jindal's hearing - for the THIRD time!
I've run out of adjectives to adequately describe this craziness, while Greg and Catherine, worried by General Medical Council lies and lack of transparency throughout, disgusted with Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service, unable to trust either organisation, gave their blessing for me to publish this info.
19 September