transcript of stuart jones hearing
DESCRIPTION
Transcript of Dr Stuart Jones' Conduct & Competence Hearing 20.12.11TRANSCRIPT
HEALTH PROFESSIONS COUNCIL
MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS
at a
SUBSTANTIVE HEARING
of the
CONDUCT AND COMPETENCE COMMITTEE
held at
PARK HOUSE, 184 KENNINGTON PARK ROAD, LONDON, SE11 4BU
on
TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2011
Present:
Mr Colin allies In the Chair
Mr Ernest Cady Clinical Scientist
Mrs Cynthia Mendelsohn Lay Partner
Ms Jane David Presenting Officer
Mr Alain Gogarty Legal Assessor
Ms Fulden Boyraz Hearings Officer
-----------
In the matter of Mr Stuart Jones, Registered Clinical Scientist, Registration No. CS17316.
The Registrant was present, and was represented by Ms Louise Price of Counsel,
instructed by Thompsons Solicitors.
-----------
__________________________________________
Transcript of the shorthand notes of WB Gurney & Sons LLP,
10 Greycoat Place, London, SW1P 1SB
Telephone Number: 0207 960 6089
________________________________________
I N D E X
Page
Introductions 2
Application to amend the allegations 2
Allegations read 3
Decision on application to amend the allegations 5
Submission by Presenting Officer 5
DR XY, Sworn
Examined by Presenting Officer 7
Examined by The Panel 10
Cross-examined by Ms Price 11
MRS AA, Affirmed
Examined by Presenting Officer 11
MR STUART JONES, Affirmed
Examined by Ms Price 13
Cross-examined by Presenting Officer 15
Examined by The Panel 17
Re-examined by Ms Price 19
DR CC, Affirmed
Examined by Ms Price 21
Closing Submission by Presenting Officer 26
Closing Submission by Ms Price 27
Advice by Legal Assessor 29
Decision on facts and impairment 30
Submission on sanction by Presenting Officer 32
Submission on sanction by Ms Price 33
Advice by Legal Assessor 34
Decision on sanction 34
Please Note: Copies made from hard copy transcript and those printed from email version
may differ in formatting and/or page numbering.
---------------------------------------
2
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
At 10.03am:
CHAIR: Good morning, everyone. We will start with some introductions if we might.
We three are a Panel of three. We are here to hear the HPC’s case against Mr Jones and
the case that Mr Jones wants to put against that. We are independent of the HPC. We
consist of Mrs Mendelsohn, who is a lay member of the Panel, Mr Cady, who is the
clinical scientist Panel member and I am Colin Allies. I am a lay member and chairing
the Panel today. To my left we have a shorthand writer recording the hearing for us. If
we could speak up that would be extremely helpful. May I ask other people in the room
if they would briefly introduce themselves, please?
LEGAL ASSESSOR: My name is Alain Gogarty and I am the Legal Assessor. My role
is to advise the Panel on questions of law and procedure. I am not part of the HPC Panel.
HEARINGS OFFICER: Good morning. My name is Fulden Boyraz and I am the
Hearings Officer for today. (Health and Safety announcement)
PRESENTING OFFICER: Good morning. I am Jane David representing the Health
Professions Council.
MS PRICE: Good morning. My name is Louise Price and I am here representing Mr
Jones today.
THE REGISTRANT: Stuart Jones, the Registrant.
CHAIR: Good morning and welcome. Those are the introductions. I presume there is no
issue about service as Mr Jones is here?
PRESENTING OFFICER: No, not unless there are any objections, Sir.
MS PRICE: None, Sir.
CHAIR: We can take it that there is good service. Are there any other preliminary points
anyone wants to bring up before we move to having the allegations read?
PRESENTING OFFICER: There is just one before the allegations are read into the
record, Sir, and that is a minor amendment to the allegation. If I can ask you to turn to
page 5 of your bundles.
CHAIR: That is the HPC bundle?
PRESENTING OFFICER: The HPC bundle, yes, Sir, where the notice of allegation is
set out. This is an amendment that was discussed between the parties prior to today’s
hearing so I hope that it is not contentious in any way.
CHAIR: Well, we shall see!
PRESENTING OFFICER: That is simply to remove from particular 1, which at the
moment says, “Made disparaging and/or misleading comments”, “and/or misleading”.
3
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
That is not to say that the Council is suggesting that everything that Stuart Jones said
within his forum posts are true, it is just that we did not wish for the Panel to get bogged
down in whether this or that statement was true or misleading. It seemed disproportionate
to get expert reports and these kinds of things to say one way or another whether any
comments were true or not. It was felt that in order for the Panel to focus on the crux of
the issue, and that is the inappropriate nature of some of the posts that were made and
whether or not they should have been made, it will allow you to focus on that point.
CHAIR: On a point of clarity, you want the first allegation to read, “Made disparaging
comments on the website forum, Bad Science, about Dr XY”?
PRESENTING OFFICER: That is right, Sir.
CHAIR: Thank you. Do you want to object to that or are you happy with it?
MS PRICE: No objections.
CHAIR: Thank you. Are there any other preliminary points?
PRESENTING OFFICER: I believe that is all, thank you, Sir.
CHAIR: In which case maybe I can ask Ms Boyraz if she will read the allegation and the
particulars of it and maybe I could ask you, Ms Price, to respond as to whether admitted
or not.
HEARINGS OFFICER: “During the course of your registration as a Clinical Scientist,
between 1 March 2009 and 26 October 2010, you:
“1. Made disparaging comments on the website forum, Bad Science, about Dr XY.”
CHAIR: Can we just confirm whether that is admitted?
MS PRICE: That is admitted.
CHAIR: Thank you.
HEARINGS OFFICER: “2. The matter set out in paragraph 1 constitutes misconduct”.
MS PRICE: That is not admitted.
HEARINGS OFFICER: “3. By reason of that misconduct, your fitness to practise is
impaired”.
MS PRICE: Not admitted.
CHAIR: Thank you. Before we move on and Ms David opens the case for the HPC, can
we just be clear that the normal process here is that we deal with the facts, the grounds
and the impairment altogether. If there is a submission to hear it in a different way then I
am happy to hear it.
4
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
MS PRICE: In which case, if I could raise at this stage the fact that in terms of certainly
impairment we would seek to rely on testimonials. There are two witnesses who are in a
position to attend on behalf of Mr Jones in this matter. Unfortunately, one of those
witnesses is not able to attend until tomorrow morning.
CHAIR: Until tomorrow morning?
MS PRICE: Until tomorrow morning. One is on-call, if I can put it that way, or on
standby to attend this afternoon, but if the Panel is approaching it in that way maybe the
best approach, although this is something that perhaps I would like a moment to speak to
my client about, is to simply say their written testimonials would be before the Panel and
it may well be that we wish to highlight that those people would be able to attend to stand
by those testimonials if the Panel felt it was necessary.
CHAIR: The Panel does not particularly want to express a view about that, it is for you
to make your case as well as you can for your client and I understand that.
MS PRICE: Yes.
CHAIR: Maybe you need a minute or two to consider that.
MS PRICE: I think that would be helpful given that indication.
CHAIR: We will take a short adjournment. Is there anything you want to say about that
before we take that adjournment?
PRESENTING OFFICER: Nothing, Sir.
CHAIR: Is there anything you want to add, Mr Gogarty?
LEGAL ASSESSOR: I want to make sure that Ms Price understands the way these
proceedings proceed in HPC disciplinary hearings. There is no Rule 24 procedure as you
have in nursing whereby the Panel retire to consider the facts, so at the conclusion of all
of the evidence the Panel will decide whether the facts have been proved to the requisite
standard, whether they constitute misconduct and whether current fitness to practise is
impaired. Are you clear on that?
MS PRICE: Yes, thank you very much.
CHAIR: We will take a short break and I am sure that Ms Boyraz will tell us when you
are ready.
MS PRICE: I am grateful.
CHAIR: Of course, each phase of this is conditional on the previous one.
MS PRICE: Of course.
5
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
After a short break
CHAIR: Before we hear what you want to say, it has been pointed out to me by one of
my colleagues that both of you agreed the amendment to the allegation but we did not say
that we aBBepted it, so just to dot the i’s and cross the t’s, yes, we aBBept the
amendment.
PRESENTING OFFICER: Thank you.
MS PRICE: I am grateful for that extra time. We are in a position where we have
managed to marshal a further witness other than Mr Jones but obviously we do not need
to come to that stage yet. That witness is already here at the hearing, so that was very
helpful.
CHAIR: Are you content that we move through each stage depending on the decision on
the last one?
MS PRICE: Yes.
CHAIR: Are you happy that we move through to the question of impairment?
MS PRICE: Yes, Sir.
CHAIR: Thank you very much. Ms David, maybe you will open the case.
PRESENTING OFFICER: Thank you, Sir. As we have just heard the allegation against
Stuart Jones is that his fitness to practise is impaired by reason of misconduct and the
particulars of allegation relate to the posting of disparaging comments on a public website
in relation to Dr XY, as we are referring to her in the allegations, and the treatment of her
patients.
As has already been identified, in making your determinations as to whether his fitness to
practise is impaired as a result of this conduct you will have to go through that three-stage
process which you know all too well but, for the avoidance of any doubt, you must be
satisfied the facts are proven; if they are proven whether they amount to misconduct; and
finally whether fitness to practise is presently impaired as a result of any misconduct you
may or may not find.
As we have already heard from Mr Jones, he does admit and aBBept the facts of the
allegations against him. I submit that this, of course, will play a substantial role in your
determinations as to that first stage of the process. As well as the factual particulars, of
course, you are going to have to consider whether they amount to misconduct and
whether there is any current impairment of fitness to practise. It will be those two issues
that will be the primary considerations for you today.
In order to assist with your decisions today I will be calling two witnesses on behalf of
the Council: Dr XY, who is a general practitioner and also the individual about whom the
disparaging comments were made, and also AA, whose son is a patient of Dr XY and
who made the initial complaint about these comments to the Health Professions Council.
6
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
You will, of course, have noted that one other witness, BB, has also provided a statement
for the purposes of these proceedings. Given Mr Jones’ admission as to the facts of this
case this witness was de-warned and the Council will be relying on her written evidence
alone. She will not be attending today.
I would ask you to bear all of the written statements in mind when making your
determinations today. I do not intend to waste your time in asking the witnesses detailed
questions or to give detailed live evidence on those issues which have already been
admitted and aBBepted by Mr Jones. In fact, I will have very few, if any, questions for
each of those witnesses when they appear today. They are of course here for you to have
an opportunity to ask them any questions that you feel may assist you in making your
determinations as to the issues of misconduct and current impairment.
The allegation to be considered by you today stems from complaints made by two
members of the public, AA and BB, regarding what they felt to be disparaging and
inappropriate comments made on a Bad Science website forum about Dr XY by Stuart
Jones. These comments relate in particular to Dr XY’s website and the contents within
that website which provided advice for her patients and other interested parties primarily
relating to a form of chronic fatigue syndrome.
There is very little that I can say about these forum posts that you will not have already
established for yourselves having read the bundles. Mr Jones has admitted that it was he
who made those posts, he has admitted that some of them were indeed disparaging about
Dr XY and you can see for yourself the contents of the posts which are in your bundles
from page 27. I do not intend to waste your time by going through those in any detail.
Dr XY reported within her witness statement that the publishing of these comments and
the discussions that followed thereinafter had a detrimental effect upon her professionally
and personally and on her patients as well as on her business and this is something that
we may hear a little more about from her in a moment.
Whether these actions admitted by Mr Jones amount to misconduct and impairment of
fitness to practise are matters for your professional judgment but the Council will submit
that in engaging in disparaging banter about a fellow registered health professional and
the terms that were used in doing so on a public website forum that any member of the
public could have aBBess to Mr Jones has neglected to uphold proper standards of
conduct and behaviour expected of registered health professionals. This is something that
I will address you on further when it comes to closing the case.
Sir, if I can assist no further at this time I will call my first witness, who is Dr XY.
CHAIR: Do you have any questions at this stage for Ms David?
MR CADY: No.
MRS MENDELSOHN: No.
7
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
CHAIR: Dr XY will be referred to throughout and recorded throughout as “Dr XY”, I
imagine?
PRESENTING OFFICER: I think that is the most sensible approach. As she was in the
allegations it follows.
CHAIR: Just to be clear.
DR XY, Sworn
Examined by PRESENTING OFFICER
Q. CHAIR: Good morning. For the sake of the hearing and for the record we shall refer
to you throughout as “Dr XY” or maybe just “Dr”.
A. That’s fine.
CHAIR: We will do some introductions so that you know who is in the room. We here
are a Panel of three. We are independent of the HPC and we have to hear their case
against Mr Jones and hear his response to it. On my left is Mrs Mendelsohn, who is a lay
member of the Panel, and on my right is Mr Cady, who is the clinical scientist member. I
am Colin Allies. I am a lay member of the Panel and chairing the Panel today. To your
left is a shorthand writer and if you can speak up for her that would be extremely helpful.
If other people in the room could introduce themselves, please.
LEGAL ASSESSOR: Good morning. My name is Alain Gogarty. I am the Legal
Assessor. It is my role to advise the Panel and parties on questions of law and procedure.
I am not part of the HPC Panel and I will not be asking you any questions.
HEARINGS OFFICER: Good morning. We have met before. I am Fulden Boyraz, I am
the Hearings Officer today.
PRESENTING OFFICER: Good morning. We have also met. I am Jane David
representing the Health Professions Council.
MS PRICE: Good morning. I am Louise Price and I am here representing Mr Jones.
THE REGISTRANT: Stuart Jones, Registrant.
CHAIR: Thank you. Just so that you know, the process will be that there may be some
questions from Ms David and then undoubtedly from Ms Price and maybe some from the
Panel and there may be some reiteration to clear up any points that arise. If I could hand
you over to Ms David.
PRESENTING OFFICER: Thank you, Sir. I just have a handful of questions for you,
Dr. It may feel unnatural but although the questions are coming from me if you can direct
your responses to the Panel members, they are the ones who need to hear you. You also
have a shorthand writer next to you, so if you can just speak at a pace she can follow that
would be great.
CHAIR: Perhaps you could direct us to the page in the bundle?
8
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
PRESENTING OFFICER: Yes, that was what I was about to do. You should have a
bundle of documents in front of you and if I could ask you to open up the larger bundle to
page 14.
CHAIR: I suspect that you may have the wrong bundle.
PRESENTING OFFICER: I apologise. Maybe it is not the larger bundle.
CHAIR: No, it is actually slightly smaller.
Q. PRESENTING OFFICER: Force of habit, I think. Normally we have enormous
bundles. That bundle may have two page 14s, which is terribly confusing, but if you
work from the front of the bundle.
A. Yes.
Q. Perfect. If you can just have a look at that page and the next couple of pages very
quickly. Is that a copy of the statement that was prepared on your behalf for these
proceedings?
A. Yes indeed.
Q. At the end of that statement on page 16, is that your signature?
A. Yes.
Q. You state directly above that, “I believe the facts stated in this witness statement are
true”. Do you stand by that?
A. I do stand by that.
Q. Thank you. I have just one or two supplementary questions for you, Dr. Can you
describe for the Panel in brief your professional background and the current work that you
do?
A. I qualified in [date redacted] and I worked in [redacted] for [redacted] years. During
that time I developed an interest in allergy and nutritional medicine and increasingly I
found that friends of patients and relatives of patients wanted to consult me and therefore
I started a small private clinic when I was over in [location redacted]. When I came to the
[location redacted] in [date redacted] I worked for [redacted] years at [location redacted],
which is a kind of local NHS practice, and the private side of my practice evolved further.
In [date redacted] I eventually went completely into private general practice and have
done that for the last [redacted] years. So I’ve been in continuous work for nearly
[redacted] years.
Q. Thank you. Can you explain for the Panel your website which seemed to be the focus
of many of Stuart Jones’ posts?
A. As you can well imagine I’ve learnt an awful lot of things on my way and it seemed
an awful lot of patients who were consulting me were patients with chronic fatigue
syndrome or ME. As you may or may not know, the world of treating ME is divided into
two camps. There’s the camp that believes it’s a psychological illness and there’s the
camp that believes it’s a physical illness. My ways of treating fatigue syndromes are very
simple with respect to diet, nutritional supplements, lifestyle changes, discipline about
9
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
sleep, and many of these things are things patients can do for themselves, so I thought the
best way I could be helpful to the general public and people who were suffering from
conditions was to put that on a website where the information was freely available to
anybody to aBBess and download if they felt it helpful. I started that website in about
2000 and it has evolved since then. I updated it in 2010, since when it’s had about three
and a half million hits from members of the general public who find it helpful to be given
the information to allow them to manage their ill health. It’s empowering patients, as I
see it, to help themselves.
Q. These forum posts made by Stuart Jones that are the subject of the hearing today, how
did you come to see them?
A. I only became aware of them in April 2010 because my patients told me about them.
I didn’t make it my business to follow them slavishly but they did cause a great deal of
anxiety amongst my patients for themselves and for me.
Q. Which is the next thing I am going to ask you. What effect did they have on you
professionally and personally?
A. Well, the office was inundated with calls from patients. As I’m sure you’re aware, as
a result of Mr Jones’ complaint against me the General Medical Council investigated that.
Of course they are bound to take all complaints to the GMC very seriously and because of
Mr Jones’ standing as a clinical scientist then they would have taken his complaint very
much more seriously than from an average member of the public. They determined to
investigate me and my website and that caused patients great concern because for many
of them, because I take the view that ME is a serious and physical condition, I’m the last
port of call because they often don’t get a sympathetic hearing from their GPs or from
their consultants and I’m at least prepared to take their symptoms seriously and treat them
as a physical condition and arrange for tests that are appropriate and in my view logical,
which has great implications for benefits, pension benefits, availability for work and so
on, all of which are of great concern to people who are ill. There was that side that the
patients were concerned for their own welfare. For many of my patients I prescribe
medications which maybe their GPs are not prepared to prescribe - of course I invariably
write and tell the general practitioners what I’m doing - and they were concerned that
they would no longer be able to aBBess their medications. They were also worried that I
would maybe give up my practice of medicine and do something different because the
whole business was extremely stressful.
Q. Can I just pause you for a minute. We need to close the door. I do beg your pardon.
A. There was something else I was going to say. Anyway, it was stressful for my
patients. Oh, that’s right. For all of my patients I am a spokesperson for the camp that
believes that ME fatigue syndrome is a physical condition and I often attend meetings, I
get invitations all over the country to speak, and those all dried up completely, I could no
longer be a public spokesperson on their behalf. There were lecturing posts that I had
been offered, for example the Integrated Medicine Group, that fell through. I was forced
to resign as Secretary for the British Society for Ecological Medicine because they felt
my status was being eroded. As I’m sure you can imagine, one’s professional reputation
is very important. Of course the business as well, patients stopped consulting me. In fact,
there was one patient in particular who thought because I had been suspended I could no
longer could be consulted. I don’t know if this happened directly as a result of that but
the man deteriorated and he actually committed suicide. That’s just one example of how
10
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
one patient was very seriously affected. I don’t know if that’s directly as part of Mr
Jones’ blogging but it resulted.
PRESENTING OFFICER: Thank you, Dr. I have no further questions for you but if you
remain where you are I am sure there will be other questions.
MS PRICE: There are no questions from me.
CHAIR: Questions from the Panel.
Examined by THE PANEL
Q. MR CADY: Can you give the Panel an idea of how many patients forwarded posts on
the website to you and how many expressed anxiety and upset?
A. Not hundreds but certainly tens. What actually happened was I had massive support
from my lovely patients and I have to say without them I don’t think I would’ve remained
so strong. As I’m sure you know, within a few weeks of me being reported to the GMC
there were 2,000 letters and emails of support to the GMC and concern. My patients
actually took on the job of answering queries and trying to reassure patients that I was
going to fight it as hard as I possibly could and I would remain there to support them.
Most of that work was done by the Support Dr XY website and that freed me up to get on
with the business of all the other things that I had to do.
Q. Are you considering any civil action at all?
A. I beg your pardon?
MR CADY: Are you considering any civil action at all?
LEGAL ASSESSOR: Sir, I do not believe that question would help this Panel.
CHAIR: Anything else?
MR CADY: No.
CHAIR: Mrs Mendelsohn?
MRS MENDELSOHN: No.
Q. CHAIR: Can I just ask you one question if I might. You have talked about the
implications for your patients and your practice. How have you differentiated to what
extent that was the responsibility of Mr Jones or the GMC?
A. The two are indivisible. I think the GMC, as they have repeatedly told me, are
obliged to investigate every complaint and every concern that is made to them. I think
the point is because this complaint came from a fellow professional they took it very
seriously.
Q. The GMC took it seriously?
A. Yes.
11
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
Q. The consequences for your practice were as a result ---
A. Were extremely serious.
Q. --- of the GMC hearing? Is that what you are saying?
A. Yes. At one point I was suspended from the practice of medicine.
CHAIR: That is all I want to ask. Is there anything else?
Cross-examined by MS PRICE
Q. MS PRICE: There is a point arising. Dr, you have just referred to the fact that tens
but not hundreds of patients contacted you. That was in regard to the GMC hearing, was
it not?
A. Again, it’s impossible to separate the GMC and Mr Jones’ complaint because his
complaint was obviously to the GMC and it’s very clear from the paperwork that that was
their major concern. There had been another complaint that they had run with for a year
and done nothing with and they were the first to drop that complaint. Most of the GMC
actions were in response to Mr Jones’ concerns.
Q. The concerns of your patients were in response to the GMC?
A. Well, they knew that the GMC had the powers to sanction my practice and suspend
me and they were very concerned about that.
Q. Dr, what I am getting at is the tens of patients that you have described contacting you,
the reason they were contacting you, and you have described a website that was
supporting you, that was because of the action that the GMC were taking against you.
A. I see what you’re getting at. I see what you’re driving at. Because many of my
patients aBBess me via my website they are regularly on the Internet looking for answers.
The Bad Science website, as I’m sure you know, is a place where people looking for
alternative health answers go to in order to get another angle on that. I think that they
thought that Mr Jones’ blogs were undermining my practice, were derogatory, were
defamatory, were unprofessional and were damaging to me directly and damaging to my
professional reputation. In fact, many of the patients wanted to speak to me to ask if what
he said was true, if there was any veracity there, whether his opinions had any foundation
whatsoever and invited me to engage in a war of words with him and on that I absolutely
refused, I thought that would be unhelpful. I considered that to engage with Mr Jones on
the Bad Science website would amount to a feeding frenzy, if you like, so I refused to go
down that path. Maybe one or two of my patients took up the cudgels on my behalf but I
was not going to be part of that.
MS PRICE: Thank you. There are no further questions from myself.
CHAIR: Do you have anything else, Ms David?
PRESENTING OFFICER: No, thank you, Sir.
Q. CHAIR: Anything else from the Panel? (No response) Thank you very much for
coming.
A. Can I stay as a member of the public?
12
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
CHAIR: Yes, if you wish.
LEGAL ASSESSOR: Sir, if the witness could be given the usual direction.
CHAIR: Yes. Please do not talk to any future witnesses about what has gone on in the
room.
The witness withdrew
PRESENTING OFFICER: If I can call the Council’s second witness, AA. Her statement
is on page nine.
CHAIR: Yes, thank you.
MRS AA, Affirmed
Examined by Presenting Officer
CHAIR: Good morning. We will do some introductions so that you know who is in the
room and what we are doing. We will start with the Panel. We are a Panel of three
appointed by the HPC to hear their case against Mr Jones and to hear what he has to say
about it. On my left is Mrs Mendelsohn, who is a lay member of the Panel, and on my
right is Mr Cady, who is a clinical scientist member of the Panel. I am Colin Allies. I am
a lay member and chairing the Panel today. To your left is a shorthand writer who is
recording the hearing for us. If you can speak up for her and for us that would be
extremely helpful. If other people in the room can introduce themselves.
LEGAL ASSESSOR: Good morning. My name is Alain Gogarty. I am the Legal
Assessor. It is my role to advise the Panel and parties on questions of law and procedure.
I am not part of the HPC Panel and will not be asking you any questions.
HEARINGS OFFICER: Good morning. We have met before. I am Fulden Boyraz and I
am the Hearings Officer for today.
PRESENTING OFFICER: Good morning. We have also met. I am Jane David
representing the Health Professions Council.
MS PRICE: Good morning. My name is Louise Price and I am here representing Mr
Jones.
THE REGISTRANT: Good morning. Stuart Jones, Registrant.
CHAIR: Broadly, the way this will work is that you will have some questions from Ms
David and then from Ms Price and maybe some from the Panel. It may be that there will
be some reiteration if there are points to be clarified.
Q. PRESENTING OFFICER: Thank you, Sir. Just a couple of questions from me, Mrs
AA. You should have a bundle of documents in front of you. If I can ask you to refer to
the one on your left, which should be the Health Professions Council bundle, and if you
13
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
could turn to page 9 of that bundle, please. If you flick through the following pages there,
is that a copy of your statement that was prepared for the purposes of this hearing?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. On the second page, page 10, is that your signature at the end there?
A. It is.
Q. You state directly above your signature that you believe the facts stated in this witness
statement are true. Do you stand by that?
A. Yes, to the best of my knowledge they are.
PRESENTING OFFICER: Mrs AA, I have no supplementary questions for you but if
you remain where you are I am sure there will be questions coming from elsewhere in the
room.
MS PRICE: I have no questions.
CHAIR: Questions from the Panel?
MR CADY: No.
MRS MENDELSOHN: No.
CHAIR: That was the shortest I have ever seen! Thank you very much for coming. It is
obvious that what is in your statement is clear enough for us to read and it is very helpful
that we have it to refer to. Thank you very much for submitting it to us. You can stay if
you wish for the rest of the hearing. I think there are no other witnesses for the HPC?
PRESENTING OFFICER: No, thank you, Sir.
CHAIR: No other witnesses that are likely to come should be spoken to about the case,
Mrs AA.
The witness withdrew
CHAIR: Does that conclude your case, Ms David?
PRESENTING OFFICER: It does, thank you, Sir.
CHAIR: Are you ready to continue or do you need a short break?
MS PRICE: I am ready to continue.
CHAIR: Then we will.
MS PRICE: In which case I will call Mr Jones.
MR STUART JONES, Affirmed
Examined by MS PRICE
14
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
CHAIR: You know who we all are. The questioning will go in the reverse order and it
will be Ms Price to start.
Q. MS PRICE: Thank you very much. Mr Jones, if I can ask you to turn to what I think
we have now established is the slightly larger bundle. It should say “Index to Registrant’s
Bundle” on the front and if I can ask you to turn to the first proper page of that beyond the
index. That should be a document headed “Witness Statement of Stuart Jones”. Have
you found that?
A. Yes.
Q. Then if I can ask you to turn to page 16 of the bundle, which is the last page of that
statement. Is that page signed?
A. No, it’s not signed.
MS PRICE: Perhaps if I could ask Mr Jones either to sign it now or simply to confirm its
truth.
CHAIR: Mr Gogarty, usually it is okay for them to confirm that it is true, is that the
case?
LEGAL ASSESSOR: Yes.
CHAIR: Then that is what he can do.
Q. MS PRICE: Thank you. In which case, if I could ask you have you had the
opportunity to read your witness statement through?
A. I have, yes.
Q. Can you confirm to the Panel if it is true to the best of your knowledge?
A. It is to the best of my knowledge.
Q. Thank you. If I can now ask you to turn to paragraph 58, which is on page 15 of your
statement. It should be the page before the one you were just looking at.
A. Yes.
Q. You have now had the opportunity to see Dr XY’s statement in this matter and her
comments on how your posts made her feel. Can you tell the Panel what your feelings
are on that?
A. Absolutely. As I say in the statement I deeply regret any effects that my comments
have caused, that was never my intention. It was never my intention to get drawn into a
situation where I inadvertently made these kinds of statements and it certainly was never
my intention to offend patients. Indeed, I was trying to act in the patients’ best interests
all along. Unfortunately, in defending patients, as such, whilst I was making some of
these statements I appear to have offended them and I find that very sad indeed and I
deeply regret it.
MS PRICE: Thank you very much, Mr Jones. There are no further questions from
myself but there will be more questions for you.
15
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
Cross-examined by Presenting Officer
PRESENTING OFFICER: I have just a few questions, Mr Jones. We have gathered
from viewing the forum posts the kinds of discussions that take place there, it is a kind of
light-hearted banter about what you call “quacks”, is that right?
CHAIR: That are called what, sorry?
Q. “Quacks” sometimes. About bad science.
A. It’s often light-hearted. I wouldn’t say it was just about quacks. It’s more of a
general science forum than anything else. All kinds of topics are discussed there:
government policy, journalism, reporting of science in the media and science in general.
There’s a whole range of topics that are discussed there.
Q. Do you appreciate that as a registered healthcare professional you are perhaps subject
to a higher standard of conduct than others who may be posting on that forum, other
members of the public if you like?
A. To start with, nobody on the forum knew me as a clinical scientist. They didn’t know
my real name or my profession. I suppose I did, yes. I always tried to keep my posts as
courteous as possible and I’d always try and back everything I was saying, especially if I
was debating with other forum members on specific issues of science. I’d always try and
reference my statements with relevant scientific literature or articles. That was always the
way I tried to conduct myself on the forum and I suppose that’s me talking as a scientist
in general. That was always my intention in the way I conducted myself.
Q. But you have aBBepted that perhaps some of the comments were disparaging, so even
though it was your intention it did not always eventuate that way?
A. No. The issue with this thread was that it was so unusual in the way the discussion
ensued. Normally the kinds of discussions that you have on the forum would be finished
within perhaps 100 posts and often quite a few less than that once people have added their
various arguments. Once I posted on the forum about this topic, bearing in mind it was
already public at the time and people were aware, in hindsight it was not a very clever
thing to do at all. The way the discussion took off was just unbelievable, I’d never seen
anything like it. The thread reached something like 1,500 posts within a matter of days
and it finished at 10,000, about 400 pages or so of comments. Once it had started and
particularly once the supporters of Dr XY had taken it upon themselves to come on and
defend her on the forum the discussion got extremely heated. It was very difficult to
follow, there were so many posts being made. Because I felt that a lot of the posts that
were being made there were quite inaBBurate, they were rumour, they weren’t based on
the substance of what I was trying to get across, which was the science of my complaint, I
felt as though I had to engage and try and explain my point of view and where I was
coming from. It became very frustrating. The discussion became very circular, I would
be repeatedly asked the same question, I would be insulted, there were personal threats
made against me on the forum, so at times just because I was typing so quickly I’d write
things and then think, “Oh, maybe I shouldn’t have written that”. After a very short time
unfortunately there are restrictions, as I say in the statement, placed on the forum so that
once you’ve made a post after ten minutes you are unable to go back and edit that post, so
that was locked down. There are certain things there I would’ve phrased more carefully
16
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
and been more objective and just tried to post in the usual way that I do by making
scientific argument and including references.
Q. You said earlier that you never said that you were a clinical scientist and nobody
knew who you were effectively. I believe you did say that you were a health professional
within those posts.
A. I think it would’ve been perhaps clear to somebody who has seen some of my
previous posts that I was a health professional of some kind or had some involvement in
the NHS perhaps, yeah, but I never talked about that at any great length.
Q. Do you appreciate that aBBording to the HPC standards, which of course you are to
adhere to, that an increased standard of conduct applies both to your life outside of work
as well as inside of work?
A. Absolutely, yeah.
Q. Would you agree that in making what you have admitted were disparaging comments
about another health professional on what is a public forum easily aBBessible by other
members of the public that you breached that higher standard of conduct?
A. I would say no in that when I was discussing things I was expressing an opinion.
Admittedly at times I expressed it in an unnecessarily offensive manner and I shouldn’t
have done that, I could’ve phrased it much more carefully, but I was expressing my
opinion, my scientific clinical opinion, on very specific matters of fact and that was
always my intention.
Q. If I can just refer you very quickly to a couple of examples of things that are within
here. At page 56 you refer to “deluded pill-peddling quacks with a tenuous (at best) grasp
of scientific method”. You talk about “pill-peddlers” and “woo love”.
A. I don’t think that’s my comment. There may be some confusion with the way the
comments have been quoted in the document in that when you post on the forum you can
quote another user’s text, so the user would post a quote. You can use a quotation
function that takes that text, embeds it in your own and then you comment underneath
that, so it’s clear you’re commenting in relation to a specific post. I don’t think that
always comes across in the document in that you can’t see the divisions between these
posts. The “woo” comments weren’t me I don’t believe.
Q. Okay. I believe this one definitely was you. Comments such as, “She lulled them
into a dangerous world of make-believe, flaky pseudoscience and dangerous single-doctor
dependence … Her arrogance is astounding and very, very worrying”. You talk about
“conspiracy theory nuttiness … the tripe that she’s vomiting onto that page”.
A. That’s not me again.
Q. It’s directly above your tagline.
A. Which page is that?
PRESENTING OFFICER: Page 76.
CHAIR: I think you may find that in the other bundle.
PRESENTING OFFICER: It is in the Council’s bundle.
17
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
Q. CHAIR: Have you got the right one, Mr Jones?
A. I think so, yes.
Q. PRESENTING OFFICER: Page 76. Right in the very centre of the page there is a
double line almost in line with the second hole punch and it is just above that.
A. That’s not in relation to Dr XY I don’t think but it looks like that is something I’ve
said. That’s in relation to something entirely different. It’s in relation to the quote above,
which is a user called “Monk” who has written something and this is a comment on
another forum entirely and my comment is in relation to whichever user that is I believe.
It’s not Dr XY.
Q. Would you agree that these sorts of comments, some of which were made by you,
some of which it seems were not, are not a very professional way to conduct yourself as a
registered healthcare professional?
A. I agree. I should have taken a step back and been more objective in my comments,
yes.
Q. If you were concerned, as you say, about her patients and the risk that Dr XY was
causing to them why did you not leave it as a complaint to the GMC and leave them to
use those processes which are in place to deal with exactly this kind of situation?
A. It was never my intention by posting on the forum to launch some kind of campaign
of any kind. I commented on the forum because these are the kinds of topics that are
discussed on a routine basis on a forum. There are various people there that will follow
up on perhaps complaints about articles written in a newspaper or other websites they’ve
found. The reason specifically I posted, and I think I say this in my very first post, was I
was just surprised at the very public way that Dr XY had approached the announcement
that there would be an investigation. As you’ve heard, she launched the website, she
posted details of this on her own website, and I was just surprised because there was no
requirement for her to do that. She stated that she wanted the interim order panel
hearings to be in public as well. As I say, I do really regret doing it but my comments at
the time were really just to highlight this was quite an unusual situation and I knew there
were people there who had an interest in these kinds of issues and I just thought it’d be
interesting to get their feedback, their opinion on things.
PRESENTING OFFICER: Thank you. I have no further questions but I am sure the
Panel will have some.
Examined by THE PANEL
Q. MR CADY: Do you agree that those threads are absolutely correct and unedited?
A. Yes. The difficulty is, as I said before, there was an edit function on the forum so I’m
not sure which version of my very first post is here. There were some posts that were
made and then subsequently edited. I think from very early on, it must have been within
a few days of this initial thread beginning, that ten minute restriction was in place. What
caused the forum moderators to do that was that many of Dr XY’s supporters that came
on were posting and then retrospectively removing everything they’d posted. If it was
perhaps an insulting comment or something they’d come back and erase it, which was
why they introduced the ten minute cut-off. This is a snapshot taken after perhaps some
18
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
posts had been edited. Usually the etiquette of a forum is that if you edit a post you add
perhaps a line at the bottom to say, “Edited for punctuation or spelling or to remove so
and so comment”, which is what I tried to do and you can see that in some of my posts
where I added an edit for spelling or something like this.
Q. So these are a true copy of the file version as it would appear on the website?
A. Yes, although, as I say, the very first post is the edited version. You can see on my
very first post I’ve added two edit lines to say what I’ve removed. I obviously removed
the term “quack” form the initial comment which I realised was inappropriate and
unprofessional.
Q. Is it true that the thread is now closed and inaBBessible to the public?
A. It is now closed and inaBBessible, yes.
MR CADY: No more questions.
Q. MRS MENDELSOHN: In the event that you were faced with such a situation in the
future where you disagreed with the science of another professional and you were
concerned for the public, what would you do?
A. Well, I’d act in the same way in that I would make contact with the relevant
professional body, which was what I’d done in the first instance. I emailed the GMC to
say, “Look, I’m a bit worried about this, what should I do?” and they recommended that I
submit a full complaint. That part of things I would do exactly the same way. I certainly
wouldn’t go on to discuss it openly on an Internet forum.
Q. Why did you choose to be anonymous in your postings if you were happy with the
science that you were putting on?
A. The name is a general Internet name I’ve used repeatedly, often because you can’t get
Stuart Jones or it’s already taken as a name on many forums. It’s really a hangover from
that. By making things anonymous --- Are we talking about in relation to the posts rather
than the complaint?
Q. Yes.
A. That’s the way it’s always been. I’ve never really made great efforts to disguise who I
am on the forum, I’ve just never talked very openly about that side of my work. I think in
general I’ve never had any reason to be anonymous because the rest of my posts have
always been quite respectable I think in my opinion before this thread certainly which just
got out of hand.
MRS MENDELSOHN: Thank you.
Q. CHAIR: What effect do you think these facts which are admitted have on the
reputation of health professionals?
A. Well, some health professionals I think are very supportive and have been since ---
Q. I am talking about in the eyes of the public.
A. In the eyes of the public?
Q. Yes. I do beg your pardon.
19
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
A. I suppose it depends on where you stand in your beliefs in reference to science. If you
are a member of the public who would expect your health professionals to question
science and perhaps claims made openly then perhaps they’d have some respect for it, but
I agree they’d say it was unprofessional to make the kind of disparaging comments or
phrase comments in the way that I have.
Q. We are not considering so much the aBBuracy of the stuff, we are talking about
whether it is disparaging or not. What I am asking you is what do you think the public
would think.
A. I think they’d say it was unprofessional of me to post disparaging remarks in that way,
I should’ve been more objective.
Q. Can you just help me with this because I am not a forum user and I am not familiar
with the way they work. How can we tell from pages 27 onwards which are your posts
and which are not?
A. In short, you can’t because unfortunately the way it’s designed on the forum is if
you’re using the quote function, as I was saying earlier, and you’re introducing somebody
else’s text it highlights it in a different background colour. Sometimes you can have
perhaps a quote within a quote within a quote and this can be up to six or seven different
users’ posts integrated into one thread and all that the quoting user would state would be
perhaps a line at the bottom. Unfortunately, those kinds of divisions haven’t come out
very well on the copy so really it’s hard to say.
CHAIR: We will have to wrestle with that. Are there any other questions from the
Panel? (No response) Ms David?
PRESENTING OFFICER: Nothing arising, Sir.
CHAIR: Is there anything arising from the Panel’s questions?
Re-examined by MS PRICE
Q. MS PRICE: There is indeed, yes. Mr Jones, if I can ask you to turn to Dr XY’s
statement. It is at page 15 of the Council’s bundle and it starts at page 14.
A. Yes.
Q. If I can ask you to look specifically at paragraph 7. If I can ask you just to take a
moment to read through paragraph 7 to yourself. (After a short pause) Do you aBBept
that those comments, all of them, were made by yourself? I ask specifically in reference
to the fact that you have described this quoting function.
A. Yes, these were all made by myself although the “ludicrous, stone-age bullshit” one
was made in relation to an entirely different matter and was not directed at Dr XY. That’s
another quote function.
Q. So that is part of this quoting function?
A. I was quoting another user who posted a link to an entirely different website and that
was my comment in relation to that website.
20
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
Q. If I can now ask you to turn to page 27 of the same bundle. We see the first post, if I
can put it that way, was on Thursday, 15 April 2010. We can see those posts then carry
on up to page 77. You have described that this thread numbered over 10,000 posts by the
end.
A. Yes.
Q. The posts that we see in this bundle are simply your posts, that is correct, is it not?
A. Yes, except where I’ve used the quote function to introduce text from other users’
posts.
Q. So we do not see here other posts by other users?
A. No, no. These are all things that I’ve posted but within some of those I’ve taken text
from other users and even external websites. You can use the quote function to introduce,
say, a block of text from a newspaper article and highlight that in a quotation background.
Q. If I can ask you to turn over to page 28, and I am hoping that this will help the Panel
understand. If we look at, for example, the first complete post there made on Thursday,
15 April.
A. The 12.33?
Q. Yes, indeed. What is it that prompted you to make that post? If we start at page 27
we can see just before that you have made a post.
A. Yes. This is a user called “bobrayner” and I’m using the quote function for that top
paragraph only and he has quoted a BBC article relating to Dr XY at the time. It’s me
commenting on the text that he’s quoted from the BBC article.
Q. Would bobrayner’s post have been part of the thread as well?
A. Yes, that would’ve oBBurred previous to that so I’m commenting on the post he’s
made within that thread but before mine.
Q. So you are responding to his post?
A. I’m responding to his post.
Q. You may or may not know this, Mr Jones, but do you know how many other people
were involved in posting in the 10,000 post thread?
A. Hundreds I would say. It’s difficult to know because obviously one person could
have multiple usernames as well. It’s very difficult to know.
Q. So between pages 27 and 77 of this bundle we only have your posts, your comments?
A. Only my posts that have come from my username but, as I say, with some quotes
attached from other sources.
MS PRICE: Thank you. No further questions from myself.
Q. CHAIR: Thank you. May I ask one point that was not entirely clear to me. You
referred to page 15 of the statement of Dr XY, paragraph 7.
A. Yes.
21
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
Q. You said that some of these were yours and some of them were not. Can I be
absolutely clear as to which were and which were not?
A. I did say all of these things except for the quote in relation to page 59. I don’t know
whether it helps to look at page 59.
Q. In the statement some examples are quoted but then I think you said if I have
understood you right, and I do want to understand, someone who practises “ludicrous,
stone-age bullshit” was not your post.
A. No, that was my comment but it wasn’t in relation to Dr XY, it was me commenting
in discussion with another user entirely regarding an entirely separate website.
Q. But the other points in here, just to be absolutely crystal clear, “vulnerable patients for
a ride” and so on, those are yours?
A. They are.
CHAIR: Thank you very much. Is there anything else?
PRESENTING OFFICER: No, thank you, Sir.
CHAIR: Then, Mr Jones, thank you very much.
The witness withdrew
MS PRICE: If I could now call Dr CC.
DR CC, Affirmed
Examined by Ms Price
CHAIR: Good morning. Thank you for coming. You should know who is in the room
and what our roles are so we will do some introductions for you before we formally get to
the business. We are a Panel of three appointed by the HPC to hear their case against
Stuart Jones. We are independent of the HPC. We consist of Mrs Mendelsohn, who is a
lay member of the Panel, and on my right is Mr Cady, who is a clinical scientist member
of the Panel. I am Colin Allies. I am a lay member of the Panel and chairing it today. To
your left is a shorthand writer who is recording the hearing for us. If you can speak up for
her and not too quickly that would be very helpful.
LEGAL ASSESSOR: Good morning. My name is Alain Gogarty. I am the Legal
Assessor. It is my role to advise the panel and parties on questions of law and procedure.
I am not part of the HPC Panel and will not be asking you any questions.
HEARINGS OFFICER: Good morning. We have met before. My name is Fulden
Boyraz and I am the Hearings Officer.
PRESENTING OFFICER: Good morning. I am Jane David and I am representing the
Health Professions Council.
MS PRICE: Good morning. We have met before. I am Louise Price and I am here
representing Mr Jones.
22
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
THE REGISTRANT: Stuart Jones, Registrant.
CHAIR: Thank you. The way this will work, Dr CC, is you will first get questions from
Ms Price. There may be some from Ms David and there may be some from the Panel.
There may be some reiteration to clear up any points of misunderstanding or difficulty.
Q. MS PRICE: Thank you very much, Sir. Thank you very much, Dr CC, for attending
today. You should have two bundles in front of you, one of which says “Registrant’s
Bundle of Documents” and it is that one that I wish you to turn to. If I can ask you to turn
to page 89 of that bundle.
A. Yes.
Q. If I can ask you to look briefly at page 89 and then over the page at page 90. This is a
letter written by yourself, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Thank you. Can you please tell the Panel how it is that you know Mr Jones?
A. We’re both members of the Bad Science forum. I’ve been a member for a few years
and I think Mr Jones has been a member for a couple of years. I mostly know him under
his username of “Jonas”. I’ve seen his posts on the forum over the period of time that
he’s been a member and I’ve used the forum myself.
Q. Outside of the forum do you know Mr Jones?
A. No, we haven’t met before this morning. We exchanged a couple of very, very brief
emails in a professional capacity but I don’t know him personally.
Q. If I can ask you to look at page 89, which is your letter, and the second paragraph
from the bottom. You say: “When Stuart/Jonas joined the forum in 2009, his posts
immediately stood out for being polite, interesting and citing good evidence.” Are you
referring there to the Dr XY thread?
A. No, that was more my general impression of his posts on the forum in particular.
When I wrote that I wasn’t aware precisely what the nature of the complaint was so I was
just commenting more on my general impression of his conduct and the way that he wrote
his posts.
Q. If I can ask you to turn over to page 90, you say in the final paragraph of your letter,
and I am reading from halfway through it: “I feel that Stuart’s conduct on the Bad Science
forum is a good example of how healthcare professionals can engage in public scientific
debate and maintain their integrity…” Again, were you referring specifically to the Dr
XY thread there?
A. No, no. Again, it was a more a general comment. He genuinely gave the impression
of someone who was interested in discussing the scientific evidence behind things and
providing references and trying in general to maintain a professional attitude. That was
the impression I formed.
MS PRICE: Thank you very much, Dr CC. There are no further questions from myself
but there may be more questions for you.
23
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
PRESENTING OFFICER: I have no questions, Sir.
CHAIR: Any questions from the Panel?
MR CADY: No.
MRS MENDELSOHN: No.
CHAIR: Thank you very much. There are no further witnesses, are there?
MS PRICE: There are no further witnesses.
CHAIR: You can stay and listen to the rest if you wish or you can leave. Thank you.
The witness withdrew
MS PRICE: Sir, I may ask for some time at this stage.
CHAIR: I was going to suggest that very thing. We are probably at the point where we
should be having closing submissions and, that being the case, it may be useful for you to
take time to make sure you structure that as you want and also useful for the Panel.
Perhaps we could aim at 15 or 20 minutes and maybe Ms Boyraz will let us know when
you are ready to proceed.
MS PRICE: Thank you, Sir.
After a short break
CHAIR: Just for the sake of the record, we have just been informed that there is a CD
that people want us to look at and I am not sure who it is that wants us to look at it.
Perhaps we could know the reason for that, what it is and in short what are the reasons.
MS PRICE: Certainly, Sir. It was my request. There are two main reasons behind it.
The CD is a copy that has been taken of the post directly off the website. What you have
replicated in your bundle is an edited version of that and it is edited in two regards. The
first one is what you have in the paper document before you is the 350 or so posts made
by Mr Jones. What you do not have is the conversation, if I can put it that way, the whole
post. The whole post is a conversation that is taking place, as we have heard in evidence,
between hundreds of users, hundreds of posters, and therefore what you do not see in the
paper version before you is the fact that Mr Jones’ comments are responses, so you do not
see the context in which those are made.
The other reason why I think it would be very helpful is because Mr Jones’ evidence
about what is and what is not quoted is very obvious from the CD because the CD has
that different text, the colour box that was described by Mr Jones in evidence. I think that
the Panel may be left in a position at the moment where they are not actually certain what
wording was and what wording was not ---
CHAIR: It was certainly a question that we were interested in.
24
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
MS PRICE: Indeed. I have seen the CD myself. Because the CD is a copy taken straight
from the website not only does it have all of the posts included in it but it also has that
differentiation in the text, so it will put it in context and I am hoping that will provide the
Panel with a greater understanding both in terms of how these 10,000 posts were
unfolding but particularly in relation to what is and is not a quote.
PRESENTING OFFICER: It formed part of the Council’s evidence so I have no
objection to you viewing that and I think it probably will be helpful if you are unsure of
which posts were made by Mr Jones.
CHAIR: Before I ask Mr Gogarty to confirm how we should use this, can you tell us
what the progeny of this CD is? How did it come to be written, when and so on?
MS PRICE: My understanding is that it was provided by the Council, it is part of the
Council’s evidence. I believe there is a witness statement that sets out ---
CHAIR: Is this the one from the Legal Assistant?
PRESENTING OFFICER: That is right, Sir.
CHAIR: You are saying you have no doubt that this is the CD which is referenced to the
statement from your Legal Assistant?
PRESENTING OFFICER: That is right and it was obtained, I believe, by the Legal
Assistant from Kingsley Napley from the Health Professions Council and it was provided
to them by AA I believe.
LEGAL ASSESSOR: So I believe technically it is part of the HPC’s case?
PRESENTING OFFICER: Yes, absolutely.
LEGAL ASSESSOR: As it is technically part of the HPC’s case the Panel can view it.
You have been invited by Ms Price to view it in relation to context and the aBBuracy of
comments. My advice to the Panel would be that it is appropriate for the Panel to view
the CD.
CHAIR: Is it your advice that we should do that before we hear closing submissions?
LEGAL ASSESSOR: I believe so, Sir.
CHAIR: In that case we will do so. I just wanted to be absolutely crystal clear as to what
it was.
MS PRICE: Not at all. As I say, it is only a point that I hope is helpful.
MR CADY: Have you seen this CD, Mr Jones?
THE REGISTRANT: Yes, I have.
25
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
MR CADY: Do you agree that it is a true copy of the posts on the website and has not
been edited by anyone since the download?
THE REGISTRANT: I agree to the best of my knowledge. I posted over 300 times,
sometimes a full letter text, so I couldn’t say for certain but as far as I remember it’s as I
posted it on the forum.
CHAIR: Does that alter what you want to say or not?
LEGAL ASSESSOR: No, Sir.
CHAIR: In which case we will view the CD. I think we may take some time to do that
and perhaps it would be a good idea for us to take refreshments now while we are doing
that as it is 12.30. I am not sure what time we will be ready. If we could aim at about
half past one, depending on how well the Panel gets on in viewing this, for closing
submissions that would be good. I presume that you have closed your case?
MS PRICE: Yes indeed. No, Sir, I apologise. I just want to confirm for the record that
you have these documents. The Hearings Officer very kindly handed you two additional
testimonials in the previous adjournment. It is with those that I close my case.
CHAIR: Yes, thank you. This is a letter from Barking, Havering and Redbridge
University Hospitals of 8 December from [name redacted] and a second letter dated 12
December 2011 from [name redacted] of Barking, Havering and Redbridge.
MS PRICE: That is correct.
CHAIR: Thank you very much.
After the luncheon adjournment
CHAIR: What we have done is to look at the CD which you provided us with. We have
been able to understand and see more clearly from the CD exactly how the forum works,
how the responses oBBur and how they do not, and so on and so forth, and got the
general picture of, shall we say, the culture of the forum. What we have not done is to
look at the specific examples that have been brought to our attention because there were
simply too many directories to look through and search within the time.
MS PRICE: Indeed, Sir. That is entirely aBBeptable from the Registrant’s point of view.
Thank you very much for taking the time to do that.
CHAIR: Thank you. That concludes your case presumably?
MS PRICE: That does indeed conclude the Registrant’s case. There is one point that I
wish to raise before we begin submissions, which is just to assist the Panel hopefully,
which is that in light of the evidence heard this morning the Registrant now aBBepts and
admits misconduct.
26
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
CHAIR: Thank you. That is helpful. Ms David.
PRESENTING OFFICER: Thank you, Sir. As I outlined in my opening, in making your
determinations in just a moment as to whether fitness to practise is impaired you are
going to have to go through that three-stage process. The first two stages have now been
admitted by Mr Jones and of course those admissions are going to play a substantial role
in your determinations as to both stages of the process. Of course, the facts were
admitted at the outset of the hearing, and indeed prior to today in his written submissions,
and the issue of misconduct has been admitted since he gave his evidence and effectively
has aBBepted that his conduct was unprofessional.
I do not propose to go through those two issues but rather just to focus on the issue of
impairment because that is going to be your primary consideration when you come to
consider this issue.
In considering impairment there is no definition to be relied upon. It is sometimes
described as a negative subsisting impact on a person’s performance. It is a matter for
your professional judgment, there is no burden or standard of proof to be applied at this
stage. It is important to note, in fairness to Mr Jones, that the test of impairment is
expressed in the present tense, that is “your fitness to practise is impaired at today’s date”.
In determining whether fitness to practise is impaired as a result of the misconduct which
has been admitted by Mr Jones you will have to take into aBBount the critically important
public policy issues which were identified by the High Court in the case of Cohen v
GMC. I am sure you know this case all too well but I will just read one section of it. The
critically important public policy issues which must be taken into aBBount were
described by the court as “the need to protect the individual patient”, not really relevant in
this case, and “the collective need to maintain confidence in the profession as well as
declaring and upholding proper standards of conduct and behaviour which the public
expect. That public interest includes, amongst other things, protection of the patient”,
again not relevant, and “maintenance of public confidence in the profession”.
It is the Council’s position that engaging in irresponsible, disparaging banter about a
fellow registered healthcare professional on a public forum where any member of the
public can read it Mr Jones neglected that duty to uphold the proper standard of conduct
expected of those registered by the Health Professions Council.
You may feel that the behaviour engaged in by Mr Jones on this oBBasion and some of
the language used by him is not the kind of behaviour that the public expect of their
registered health professionals. Indeed, Mr Jones admitted that the public would view the
comments he made, or indeed some of the comments he made, as unprofessional. It
follows that knowledge of it, and that members of the public would have very easily had
knowledge of it had they gone on to the forum, has the potential to damage public
confidence in Mr Jones and indeed the profession as a whole.
For his part, Mr Jones has admitted misconduct but in cross-examination did not aBBept
that his conduct falls below that expected of him under the standards despite admitting
that the public would view his behaviour as unprofessional. This may raise questions as
27
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
to his insight and knowledge or understanding of those standards but that is a matter for
you.
There was one other thing I wanted to say. I just want to refer you to a passage in the
Health Professions Council’s Practice Note on Finding Fitness to Practise is Impaired. It
says: “It is important for Panels to recognise that they need to address the critically
important public policy issues”, which I just read out to you. “It means that they cannot
adopt a simplistic view and conclude that fitness to practise is not impaired simply on the
basis that since the allegation arose the Registrant has corrected matters or learnt his or
her lesson”. Sir, I would ask you to keep that in mind as well.
It is for all those reasons that I would submit that fitness to practise is impaired.
CHAIR: Thank you. Ms Price.
MS PRICE: Sir, Mr Jones is a member of the web forum, Bad Science. This website, as
the Panel has quite clearly seen, allows discussions within the scientific community about
scientific research and phenomena. There is nothing inappropriate whatsoever in terms of
Mr Jones being part of that website.
He also has made a complaint to the GMC regarding Dr XY in this matter and again I
would submit that is entirely appropriate action. He was concerned about the bases of
claims and advice that were being given and he was entitled as a clinical practitioner to
critically analyse other practitioners’ methods, to stimulate debate in the scientific
community and to encourage discussion to encourage safe practices and empower
patients with knowledge of the range of opinions within the scientific community. Yet
Mr Jones entirely aBBepts today that out of the 10,000 posts and out of the 300 or so that
make up his posts in the thread he did use inappropriately phrased language.
However, I would ask the Panel to have regard to the fact that his motivation in this
matter was that of concern. We can see that very clearly in a number of the other posts
that are in the HPC’s bundle, and I refer specifically to the posts on pages 31 and 48 if I
may take the Panel to those to begin with. We see at page 31 the middle post, as there are
three at that stage, states: “Dr XY, there is no conspiracy here. I am not a journalist or
member of any campaign group. I am simply a concerned health professional with the
health of the general public at heart”. We then go on at page 48 where a very similar
sentiment is expressed. Again a post exactly in the middle between the two hole punches:
“Just to clarify, obviously I had no intention of getting Ben or anyone else on this forum
involved in any kind of campaign against Dr XY. I, and only I, complained to the
GMC…with a genuine concern for patient safety and they have decided that action is
required”.
It is that concern that motivated these comments. Indeed, in many of the posts, including
those that I have read out, in my submission Mr Jones shows a calm and rational
approach to scientific debate.
We can also see from page 50 of the Registrant’s bundle and indeed the general tenor of
the posts that the Panel have now had the opportunity to see on the CD that during this
conversation, if I may phrase it like that, there were threats of a very personal nature
28
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
made against Mr Jones. One example of that is at page 50 of the Registrant’s bundle. I
would ask the Panel to take into aBBount this context and also the fast-paced and
conversational nature of web-based forums, such as Bad Science.
However, putting those points to one side, Mr Jones does not seek to diminish the fact
that he has entirely recognised that his behaviour was not of the standard expected of him
and was inappropriate in the particular regard of the language and the type of language he
used in phrasing his opinions.
He has given evidence before this Panel and it shows that he clearly understands why he
was wrong in using such language and yet has said in his statement that it was a
frustration that prompted him to act in the manner that he did. However, today he has
quite openly and candidly apologised for any upset that may have been caused by that.
He has recognised the consequences of his own actions and stated that he would not
choose to use this language again or express himself in such a way in future.
In my submission it was his belief in the honesty and integrity of scientific methods and
his profession, standards of course which he is expected to uphold as a Registrant under
the HPC, that led him to make the comments, an attempt by him to uphold standards of
professional and scientific inquiry, integrity and methodology. On this one oBBasion he
went about this inappropriately and he has aBBepted that.
The Panel has heard from Dr CC, who has stated that Mr Jones’ posts on this forum are
normally polite, evidence-based and respectful. I would ask the Panel to take that
carefully into consideration.
Impairment, as the Panel has already heard and undoubtedly will be reminded, is a
forward looking test, it is current. At pages 82 onwards of the Registrant’s bundle there
are a considerable number of testimonials. In particular I would draw attention to page 84
of that bundle. It is a testimonial that begins on page 82 from a consultant doctor at the
Blackpool Teaching Hospital. In the penultimate paragraph on page 84 I wish to quote
the fact that he says: “In fact, speaking personally as an NHS clinician, I would regard Mr
Jones’ comments and contributions to the Bad Science forum as enhancing professional
and public confidence in his own profession, rather than diminishing it”.
Again, at pages 92 and 93 we have a testimonial from Professor [name redacted], who
works with the Registrant. He comments on Mr Jones’ naivety in posting his comments
on Internet forums and states that the detail of the case may need to be investigated. He
also states: “I am convinced that Stuart was doing nothing more than following his belief
that evidence-based medicine and the personal safety of individuals are paramount”.
Sir, those are significant words and words I would ask the Panel to take heed of carefully
when making their decision. Furthermore, I would remind the Panel that today the
Registrant has aBBepted misconduct and all these matters and his conduct before this
hearing show that he does indeed have insight into the problem. I would remind the
Panel that just because it is aBBepted that there was a breach of the standards expected of
him it is not automatic and it does not follow, therefore, that he is impaired. In my
submission he is not. He has clearly demonstrated insight. I would ask the Panel to find
aBBordingly.
29
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
Unless I can be of any further assistance, those are my submissions.
CHAIR: Thank you. Are there any questions? (No response) Mr Gogarty.
LEGAL ASSESSOR: I propose to be brief, Sir. When this case was opened to the Panel,
the Panel was invited to adopt a three-stage approach, namely to decide whether the facts
had been proved, if so whether they constitute misconduct and finally whether the
Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired by reason of misconduct.
When the allegations were read out the Registrant, through his counsel, admitted the facts
but notwithstanding those admissions I invite the Panel to consider all of the HPC
evidence in relation to the facts. Prior to the closing it was indicated by the Registrant’s
counsel that he admits misconduct but again notwithstanding that admission I would ask
the Panel to decide itself whether or not it constitutes misconduct.
Ms David, on behalf of the HPC, submits that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is
impaired and she has quoted certain breaches of the standards applicable. It is right to say
that whilst the Panel is entitled to take into aBBount any breach it does not necessarily
result automatically in a finding of impairment.
In approaching that question the Panel must have regard to the HPC’s Practice Note on
Finding Fitness to Practise is Impaired. It is clear that impairment is current impairment
and the Panel is required to take into aBBount any remedial steps that have been taken by
the Registrant. The case of Cohen has been quoted to you. In deciding whether or not
there is impairment remediation is a relevant factor and the Panel should consider
whether or not what has been alleged is easily remediable, has been remedied and there is
a low risk of a recurrence. As against that Ms David rightly emphasises that the Panel
should also take into aBBount the public interest components: confidence and reputation.
That is my advice to the Panel.
CHAIR: Thank you. Are there any questions of Mr Gogarty? (No response) We shall
retire. I do not know how long we will be but certainly not less than an hour and a half.
It may be that Mr Gogarty will join us if we ask him to. If he gives us any further advice
then that will be repeated on the record. He may also help us with the wording of our
decision.
MS PRICE: Sir, may I ask whether we may be released therefore for an hour?
CHAIR: Yes.
MS PRICE: I am grateful, Sir.
The Panel went in camera from 2.01pm until 4.06pm
CHAIR: Before we left we did say that if we invited Mr Gogarty to give any further legal
advice we would ask him to repeat that. Perhaps you can say what your role has been in
helping us, Mr Gogarty.
30
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
LEGAL ASSESSOR: After the Panel completed its deliberations and after it arrived at
its decision and formulated its reasons I assisted the Panel with the drafting of its
decision. I played no part in the decision-making process.
CHAIR: Thank you very much. You need to listen carefully to the decision but in
summary we have found the facts proved, we have found that they amount to misconduct
and we have found current fitness to practise impairment. I will read the decision in full
now.
At all material times the Registrant was a clinical scientist. In or around March 2010, the
Registrant submitted a complaint to the General Medical Council (GMC) in relation to Dr
XY. It was the Health Professions Council’s (HPC) case that on 15 April 2010 the
Registrant began posting on the Bad Science forum under the alias “Jonas” making
comment in relation to Dr XY and her practice. Further, it was the HPC case that these
comments were disparaging of Dr XY.
Preliminary matters.
The Registrant attended the hearing and was represented by Ms Louise Price, counsel,
instructed by Thompsons Solicitors. Ms Jane David of Kingsley Napley Solicitors
appeared on behalf of the HPC. Before the allegations were read Ms David, on behalf of
the HPC, made an application to amend Allegation 1 by deleting “and/or misleading”.
Ms Price on behalf of the Registrant did not oppose this application and the Panel
aBBeded to the request.
When the allegations were read out the Registrant, through his counsel, admitted the
factual particulars set out in the allegation, denied the misconduct alleged in paragraph 2
and further denied that his fitness to practise is impaired as alleged in paragraph 3.
On behalf of the HPC, Ms Jane David called the following witnesses who gave oral
evidence: Dr XY, a Medical Practitioner, and KC, who made the complaint to the HPC
regarding posts made by the Registrant on the Bad Science forum. She also invited the
Panel to consider as part of the HPC case the HPC bundle of documents, which includes
the witness statement of PE; a patient of Dr XY.
At the conclusion of the HPC case Ms Price called the Registrant who gave evidence on
his own behalf. She also called Dr CC (a registered clinical scientist) who gave evidence
on behalf of the Registrant.
Decision on facts.
Before the Panel sets out its findings of fact, the Panel wishes to state for the avoidance of
doubt, that it had regard to the following matters:
1. The burden of proof is on the HPC to prove the facts to the requisite standard, namely
on the balance of probabilities. There is no burden on the Registrant to disprove the
allegations.
2. The standard is the civil standard on the balance of probabilities.
31
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
3. In approaching the issue of impairment, the Panel has adopted a sequential approach,
namely to consider: (a) whether the facts set out in the allegations are proved; and, if so,
(b) whether those facts amount to misconduct and, if so, (c) whether the Registrant’s
fitness to practise is impaired by reason of misconduct so found.
The Panel has carefully considered all the oral and written evidence adduced on behalf of
the HPC and the Registrant. Notwithstanding the admission made by the Registrant in
relation to the facts in this case, this Panel has comprehensively considered all the oral
and written evidence and has viewed a CD of the Registrant’s posts on the Bad Science
forum in relation to particular 1. The Panel find, independent of the Registrant’s
admission, the facts alleged at paragraph 1 proved to the requisite standard.
Decision on grounds.
The Panel next considered whether the facts found proved constituted misconduct.
Again, independent of the Registrant’s admission to misconduct made at the close of the
case, the Panel has itself considered the question of misconduct. It is the Panel’s
judgment that the Registrant’s conduct alleged at paragraph 1 of the allegations was
inappropriate and unprofessional. In acting as he did he failed to keep high standards of
personal conduct as well as professional conduct and his behaviour fell short of what
would be proper in the circumstances.
Decision on impairment.
For the avoidance of doubt, the Panel had regard to the following matters:
1. In relation to impairment the Panel reminds itself that the test of impairment is
expressed in the present tense, that fitness to practise “is impaired”.
2. Whether the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired is a matter for the judgment of
this Panel.
3. Rule 9 of the Health Professions Council (Conduct and Competence Committee)
(Procedure) Rules 2003 provides: “Where the Committee has found that the health
professional has failed to comply with the Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics
established by the Council under Article 21(1)(a) of the Order, the Committee may take
that failure into aBBount, but such failure will not be taken of itself to establish that the
fitness to practise of the health professional is impaired”.
4. The HPC Practice Note ‘Finding that Fitness to Practise is Impaired’.
In considering the issue of impairment the Panel had regard to its findings of misconduct
set out above and to the following breaches of the HPC’s Standards of Conduct,
Performance and Ethics:
“3. You must keep high standards of personal conduct.
32
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
“13 You must behave with…integrity and make sure that your behaviour does not
damage the public confidence in you or your profession”.
In determining the issue of impairment the Panel also had regard to the HPC Practice
Note ‘Finding that Fitness to Practise is Impaired’ and has followed the sequential
approach set out in the case of Cohen v GMC [2008] (EWHC 581). It has taken into
aBBount the ‘personal’ component, namely the current behaviour of the Registrant, and
the ‘public’ component, namely the need to protect service users, declare and uphold
proper standards of behaviour and maintain public confidence in the profession. The
Panel also considered the respective submissions of the parties, the Registrant’s bundle of
documents and two testimonials submitted on his behalf. It has considered his oral
evidence and the evidence of Dr CC.
Whilst this Panel does not question the Registrant’s motivation with respect to his interest
in the use of Internet sites such as the Bad Science forum to discuss and debate clinical
issues it nevertheless finds that his posts were disparaging, inappropriate and
unprofessional. As set out above, the Registrant failed to keep high standards of personal
conduct and it is the Panel’s judgment that his behaviour had the potential to damage
public confidence in him and his profession. Whilst the Panel aBBepts that he has shown
some insight and that there is a low risk of repetition, it is the Panel’s judgment that there
is a clear need in this case to declare and uphold proper standards of behaviour and
maintain public confidence in the profession. The Registrant admitted misconduct in that
making disparaging comments on the Bad Science forum about Dr XY could undermine
public confidence in him and in his profession. In the circumstances of this case the
public would expect the Registrant’s regulator to make a finding of impairment. Public
confidence in the profession and the HPC’s regulatory role would be undermined if a
finding of impairment of fitness to practise was not made.
The Panel finds that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired by reason of
misconduct.
The usual process is that we have submissions on sanction. I am going to ask do you
want a minute or two?
MS PRICE: Yes, I do want a minute or two to talk to my client.
CHAIR: That is fine. Would you like to let us know when you are ready? If it is not too
long that would be helpful.
After a short break
CHAIR: Are you ready for the submissions on sanction?
MS PRICE: Yes, Sir.
CHAIR: Ms David.
PRESENTING OFFICER: Thank you, Sir. You will of course, given your finding, now
need to consider what sanction you feel is appropriate and in doing so you will be guided
33
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
by the Indicative Sanctions Policy. That document sets out very clearly the
considerations as to each sanction available to you, so if you do not have a copy of that
then let us know.
CHAIR: We do.
PRESENTING OFFICER: Perfect. Before you retire I would just like to remind you of
the purpose of sanction in these cases. It is not punitive. It is primarily to ensure
adequate protection of the public. It is also to maintain public confidence in this
regulatory process, to act as a deterrent to other health professionals and simply to uphold
the good name of clinical scientists. You will need to consider the principle of
proportionality balancing these public interests against the interests of Mr Jones.
The options available to you, I am sure you know them all too well, are set out in Article
29 of the Health Professions Council Order and should be considered in ascending order
of seriousness. Just for the avoidance of doubt, they include no further action, a caution
for a period of between one and five years, conditions of practice order for a period of
between one and three years, a suspension order for a maximum of one year or a striking
off order.
I am not going to suggest one sanction or another that the Council would be going for,
that is a decision that I will leave to your professional judgment. Thank you, Sir.
MS PRICE: Sir, having made a finding that Mr Jones’ fitness to practise is impaired, in
my submission the only appropriate sanction in this case would be no further action to be
taken. This was a one-off incident. We have heard evidence from Dr CC as to Mr Jones’
normal practice when posting in this forum: he is polite, evidence-based, respectful. The
Panel themselves have found that there is a low risk of repetition.
Mr Jones today has apologised and shown remorse for his actions and understands on
reflection that he has fallen below the standards expected of a Registrant and shown
before the Panel today in my submission that he fully understands the nature of that lapse.
With regard to mitigation, Mr Jones has already stated that the forum itself was
frustrating, the nature of the conversation.
CHAIR: Sorry, could you say that again?
MS PRICE: That the conversation, if I may term it that way, the thread, was frustrating
in terms of the fact that it was fast-paced, the nature of what was being said, the fact that
there were personal threats against him and of course it was in essence essentially an
intense debate.
The Panel has already been reminded that the purpose of sanction is not punitive. The
Panel has already made a finding of impairment. In my submission no sanction is
necessary in order to uphold public confidence in this matter.
I would ask the Panel equally to consider the testimonials that have been provided on
behalf of the Registrant. The Panel has already had regard to them but I would ask you to
34
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
consider them again and carefully at this stage. I would say that they characterise the
Registrant as a professional, polite and competent practitioner.
My final submission is that it is quite clear, taking into aBBount all of these actions, that
taking any further action and imposing a sanction would be wholly disproportionate in
this matter.
Unless I can assist any further, those are my submissions.
CHAIR: Do you have any questions you want to ask?
MR CADY: No.
MRS MENDELSOHN: No.
CHAIR: In that case, could we have advice from you, Mr Gogarty.
LEGAL ASSESSOR: Ms David has aBBurately set out the powers available to this
Panel and the approach that you should adopt. The Panel should also have regard to the
Indicative Sanctions Policy. As has been stated, the purpose of sanctions is not to be
punitive but to protect the public. The Panel must consider the question of sanctions in
ascending order of gravity, first considering whether or not to take no action and once the
Panel has selected the sanction that is appropriate the Panel should not proceed any
further. That is my advice.
CHAIR: Thank you very much. Any questions for Mr Gogarty? (No response) We will
be not less than half an hour.
The Panel went in camera from 4.38pm until 5.49pm
CHAIR: Again, if you would, Mr Gogarty, for the record.
LEGAL ASSESSOR: May I say for the record that after the Panel had completed its
deliberations in relation to sanction and after it arrived at its decision and its reasons it
sought my assistance in relation to the drafting of the decision. I played no part in the
decision-making process.
CHAIR: Thank you very much. Again, can I say the decision has to be read in full but
the decision of the Panel is that it is a caution and it is for two years
In deciding which sanction, if any, to impose in this case the Panel has considered the
submissions of Ms David on behalf of the HPC and Ms Price on behalf of the Registrant,
the advice of the Legal Assessor and the HPC Indicative Sanctions Policy. It has
revisited the testimonials submitted to it on behalf of the Registrant. It notes that the
primary function of any sanction is to address public safety but that it also has a duty to
give appropriate weight to the wider public interest, which includes the deterrent effect on
other Registrants, the reputation of the profession concerned and public confidence in the
regulatory process.
35
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
It has considered the question of which sanction to impose in ascending order of severity.
It notes that where a Panel has determined that fitness to practise is impaired it is not
obliged to impose a sanction.
It first considered to take no further action but decided against this course having regard
to the seriousness of misconduct set out above. To dispose of this case by taking no
further action would neither reflect the seriousness of misconduct found nor address the
public interest considerations referred to above. This misconduct cannot, in the Panel’s
judgment, be categorised as minor.
Having decided that to take no further action would not be appropriate in this case, it next
considered the imposition of a caution order. In that regard it considered all the criteria
set out in the above mentioned Indicative Sanctions Policy. It notes that this case does
not involve any issues in relation to the Registrant’s clinical competence and further notes
that the misconduct did not cause any patient harm. The Registrant has apologised for his
misconduct, now realises that his actions fell below the standards expected of a registered
professional and has shown genuine remorse. Further, it is the Panel’s judgment that the
majority of his posts on the Bad Science forum were not inappropriate and that there is a
low risk of reoBBurrence of his misconduct.
The Panel has decided to make a caution order. It notes that three years should be
regarded as the bench mark for such an order but has decided to decrease that period to
two years to reflect the mitigation present in this case as set out above.
The order is that the Registrar is directed to annotate the Registrant Stuart Jones’ entry in
the register to show that he is subject to a caution order for a period of two years.
There is a right of appeal and it is you may appeal to the appropriate court against the
decision of the Panel and the order it has made against you. In this case the appropriate
court is the High Court in England and Wales.
Under Articles 29 and 38 of the Health Professions Order 2001 an appeal must be made
to the court not more than 28 days after the date when this notice is served on you. The
order made against you will not take effect until that appeal period has expired or, if you
appeal during that period, until that appeal is disposed of or withdrawn.
That concludes the case today. Thank you all very much, especially for staying a little bit
later but it was helpful to get the case finished today. Mr Jones, if there is anything that
you want to ask about what happens in terms of the HPC processes from here on in then
Ms Boyraz is the person who can help you. Thank you very much.
The hearing concluded at 5.53pm