Kangaroo Court?

The GMC & the MPTS close ranks against another outspoken doctor

Dr Ros Jones

Dr David Cartland: harasser or harassed?

Several of us in HART know Dr David Cartland personally and have met him at various events over the past 4 or 5 years. Speaking personally, I have found him to be honest, ethical and brave but hot-headed to his own detriment. There have been many occasions where friends have begged him to come off Twitter completely, but once his ability to work had been stripped away, continuing to speak out seemed the only option left to him. He has steadily built up a large following on social media – the irony of the Tribunal’s conclusion that his behaviour brings the profession into disrepute, is that the reverse is true, with people across the world messaging their support and hailing him as a beacon of truth in these troubled times.

So what of the case against him? Did it stack up or was it just a witch hunt? I sat through most days of the hearing, having previously sat in on Sam White’s Tribunal also, and I definitely come down on the diagnosis of witch hunt.

The background

Dr Cartland was a general practitioner working in Cornwall and, from all the evidence, well liked by patients and colleagues. He complied with lockdowns, whatever his private reservations may have been, and he also got his two doses of covid-19 vaccine as a frontline healthcare worker. But as 2021 progressed he became increasingly concerned about the vaccine rollout, as he like many, was seeing vaccine injuries in his patients. When it was extended to pregnant women and to children, he resigned from his ‘vaccinating’ GP practice and, rather like Sam White, recorded a video on his phone explaining his decision and posted it on social media. Perhaps naively he thought he would find work at another less zealous surgery in the area, but it seemed that the network closed ranks. He had several successful interviews but his agency was told by one practice manager they had decided not to appoint him after finding – via Google – that he was an ‘anti vaxxer’, and replies came with comments such as ‘he wouldn’t be suitable for the ethos of our practice’ or ‘we are a vaccinating practice’. On occasions he was stood down, even when there were unfilled vacancies.

As time went on, perhaps unwisely, he spent more and more time on social media and has gradually built up a large following of almost 300,000. Then, even more unwisely, he posted comments about a couple of doctors who were high-profile vaccine promoters, one an obstetrician and one a paediatrician. From then on, the trolling of his Twitter account really took off, and interactions became more toxic. Referrals to the General Medical Council (GMC) began and have continued ever since.

Running alongside the GMC hearings has also been a civil suit for libel from one of the complainants, adding to David’s financial difficulties, with the latest solicitor’s letter arriving just a few days before the Medical Practitioners’ Tribunal Service (MPTS) hearing opened.

The allegations

The allegations fell into three groupings:

1. that Dr Cartland had harassed the 3 main witnesses on Twitter, Instagram and Gettr, particularly between 2022 and 2023 and invited his followers to retweet his messages

   1. harassment was defined within the Protection from Harassment Act 1997

   2. that he was motivated in some of his posts about witness B by hostility towards the LGBTQ+ community

2. that he agreed to provide a vaccine exemption certificate on grounds of ‘bodily autonomy’

3. that he posted an email from a GP practice manager, which showed her work email address and thus encouraged others to harass her.

The evidence

The first problem I encountered was the rejection of witnesses. I was originally due to act as a witness for him, but shortly before his hearing last autumn, three of his six witnesses were stood down, after apparently being rejected by the GMC legal team, and my witness statement was redacted. A week later, I and the other two remaining witnesses were then told we could not be called either. As a result of being dropped, I then registered to attend as an observer.

David's lengthy witness statement, in which he went through all the allegations line-by-line, provided context for his many Tweets in response to the goading and harassment he himself was facing, but this also appeared to be deemed inadmissible, on the basis that the two medical witnesses for the GMC were not the subject of the complaint. Moreover, these two witnesses were allowed protected victim status, thus being allowed to appear in camera. Yet Dr Cartland, who reached the brink of suicide last autumn causing the hearing to be suspended for 8 months, was refused a request for the hearing to be held in private. His own psychiatrist, plus a separate psychiatrist appointed by the GMC, agreed that although his mental health had recovered, attending the hearing would put him at significant risk of relapse, as indeed has occurred. This risk was particularly potent because several of Dr Cartland’s trolls on Twitter were openly discussing attending the hearing and were gloating at his impending erasure.

Moreover, he has received online death threats plus posts of his home and of his children’s school and multiple harassing phone calls to his employers whenever he did manage to get a locum appointment.

Interestingly, Twitter searches show Dr A has Dr C as a top follower. And by strange co-incidence, all the abusive accounts that have targeted Dr Cartland over a sustained 3-year period have Dr C as their top follower and Twitter circles confirm their direct interactions. This was not shared at the hearing.

Thus, only one part of the evidence was presented at the Tribunal hearing, the part that on the face of it paints him in a very poor light. In a recent substack article entitled “When a Doctor becomes the Target”, the Sentiment Inspector described in detail the modus operandi of the trolls and how they can coordinate referrals to the GMC, working over a period of time to achieve emotional and financial exhaustion.

The Legal process

The Tribunal system is of itself loaded against a dissident doctor. Long gone are the days of the Bolam Principle where, if you could find a couple of doctors who agreed with your management, that was good enough. We now have a system where the initial ‘fact-finding’ section requires a “standard of proof in civil and regulatory cases, at the balance of probabilities, i.e. whether it is more likely than not that the events occurred as alleged.” Dr Cartland’s barrister, Paul Diamond, made the point that use of the Protection of Harassment Act, i.e. implying that a criminal act had been committed, should have been heard with a criminal court requirement of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. Indeed it is notable that the police have shown no interest, he has not had so much as a warning let alone a prosecution. Similarly, the allegation regarding the vaccine exemption certificate was agreed to have constituted ‘entrapment’, but unlike a criminal hearing there is no ruling that precluded it being used in the case against him.

The tribunal, having decided that the facts are found to be proven, move on to the second phase, which is to determine whether this constitutes ‘misconduct’. “In terms of misconduct, it has no statutory definition. It is a matter for the judgment and experience of the tribunal.” Thirdly, if misconduct has occurred, the tribunal must then determine if the doctor’s fitness to practice is impaired. The Tribunal Chair reminded the panel that “there is no burden or standard of proof to adopt and that the decision as to impairment is a matter for the tribunal’s judgment alone.” Finally, if impairment is agreed, they must decide on sanctions, ranging from a caution, a period of supervision and retraining, a suspension or, in the last resort, permanent erasure from the medical register.

Misconduct would normally comprise (a) putting a patient or patients at unwarranted risk of harm; and/or (b) has brought and/or is liable in the future to bring the medical profession into disrepute; and/or (c) has in the past breached and/or is liable in the future to breach one of the fundamental tenets of the medical profession.

In this case, there was no suggestion that Dr Cartland had put patients at any risk of harm, indeed it was acknowledged “Tribunal should bear in mind that Doctor Cartland is a man of good character.”

Proportionality

One requirement for a Tribunal to consider in sanctions is that of proportionality. As journalist Sally Beck pointed out in an article last week, another GP convicted of serious child pornography offences, has a suspension only, and a consultant gynaecologist with numerous complaints against him continues to work, giving the public a definite feeling of a two-tier system.

One of the complainants has also engaged in a civil case for damages, yet he is still working and it is Dr Cartland whose career has been totally trashed.

Conclusion

At the end of the day, the decision to strike him off the register lay in the tribunal panel’s view that his behaviour “brings the medical profession into disrepute”. What the Tribunal did not appear to consider was that, far from bringing the profession into disrepute, Dr Cartland is one of the few honest and ethical doctors whose bravery in speaking out is seen by many as a beacon of light. Whether or not Dr Cartland decides to appeal against his erasure is a matter for him, but either way his case will act as yet another deterrent for doctors speaking up about harmful treatments such as the covid-19 gene-based vaccines, and at great detriment to patient safety.

Postscript

• Several letters of complaint have been sent to the GMC and MPTS. One here, that has been published as an open letter, concludes: “The case of Dr Cartland, while concerning in itself, serves as a litmus test for whether the GMC and MPTS are adhering to their obligations under law, or perhaps drifting toward unjust and unaccountable processes.”

• HART, alongside UKMedicalFreedomAlliance and DoctorsforPatientsUK, wrote last month to the NHS Speaking Up support scheme, highlighting the same concerns we had previously raised with the GMC and MPTS. They arranged an online meeting with us at which they clearly agreed the current system of whistleblower protection is broken.

• A British Medical Association survey last year found ‘rising proportion of doctors will not blow the whistle for fear of retribution’. 61% of those polled in 2024, said they “may not raise concerns because they were “afraid” they or colleagues could be “unfairly blamed or suffer adverse consequences””