Transgender children GP: Helen Webberley appeals suspension

Dr Helen Webberley's lawyers told a judge overseeing the appeal that "errors" had been made and "findings" were "wrong"

A GP who ran an online clinic for transgender patients is awaiting a High Court ruling after challenging a decision to impose a two-month suspension.

Helen Webberley was found to have committed serious misconduct by a Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) panel in June 2022.

She launched an appeal at a High Court hearing in London on Tuesday.

Her lawyers have claimed "errors" had been made and "findings" were "wrong".

Mr Justice Jay, who also heard arguments from lawyers representing the General Medical Council (GMC), said he would deliver a ruling on the appeal at a date to be fixed.

"Errors were made," Jamas Hodivala KC, who led Dr Webberley's legal team, told the judge.

"Findings of fact were wrong. The judgment on misconduct was wrong. The conclusion on sanction was wrong."

Peter Mant, a barrister representing the GMC, told Mr Justice Jay that Dr Webberley's appeal should be dismissed.

He said there had been a "proper evidential basis" for the tribunal's findings.

Mr Mant outlined the background to the case in a written argument and said Dr Webberley, a GP from Abergavenny, Monmouthshire, provided services to transgender patients and ran a website called GenderGP.

He told the judge that allegations against Dr Webberley concerned her treatment of "three transgender children or adolescents and various other matters".

Mr Mant said the sanction imposed related to "one head of charge, concerning one patient".

That patient was not named at the hearing but identified as "Patient C".

Mr Mant said "Patient C" was a teenager assigned female at birth who identified as male.

"The misconduct for which the sanction was imposed concerned failure to provide good clinical care to a transgender child (Patient C) in not discussing the risks before commencing treatment with puberty blockers," Mr Mant told the judge.

"The tribunal found that suspension was necessary to protect the public as the appellant did not have insight into her failings."