Health News

Tribunal Hears Closing Submissions in Dr Cartland Misconduct Case

By James Murray-Hodcroft | The Hodlines | 20 June 2025

The fitness to practise hearing of Dr David Cartland resumed this morning at 10:00, as the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) was reminded of the scale and seriousness of the allegations against the Cornwall-based GP.

The panel heard final arguments from Mr Paul Moran, solicitor for the General Medical Council (GMC), who said that Cartland had consistently mischaracterised the case against him as being about his anti-vaccination views. Moran argued that this narrative, which Cartland has promoted widely online, is misleading and dangerous, particularly as it continues to convince supporters that the proceedings are “vexatious complaints” intended to silence dissent.

Cartland, who enjoys a significant following on X (formerly Twitter), has maintained throughout that he is being punished for his beliefs. Dozens of testimonials were submitted to the tribunal, some from patients, others from online supporters, defending him as a “victim” and criticising the GMC. However, Moran dismissed these contributions as “ill-informed with regard to what this is all about.”

“This is not about his views,” Moran said. “This is about harassment, incitement, and professional misconduct.”

He recited a series of social media posts in which Cartland “bragged about his large online audience,” described the GMC as a “kangaroo court,” and even ran a public poll asking whether he should publish witness testimonies. “He has shown no regard for his duties to the profession or the welfare of the public,” Moran said.

One particularly concerning post, Moran noted, saw Cartland tag the complainants and write, “Karma’s a bitch.” He argued that Cartland has repeatedly “used his following to target those he felt had wronged him” and added: “This is not a one-off clash. He has not just harassed them personally, he has incited thousands of others to do so, too.”

Defence Argues Free Speech and Misjudgement, Not Malice

In response, Dr Cartland’s barrister, Paul Diamond, acknowledged the tone of many of the posts, saying: “Mr Moran has dutifully portrayed Dr Cartland in the worst light possible.” But he argued that the panel should consider broader context, including Cartland’s stress and the fallout from holding unpopular views.

Diamond drew parallels to the blood scandal of the 1970s and 80s, where doctors who raised concerns were silenced. “It took 40 years for the truth to come to light,” he said. “We say, in that sense, he is an honest doctor.”

He also noted that Cartland had admitted to “getting it wrong,” referring to him as “a man with a big mouth, but it is a limited big mouth.” Twitter, he claimed, was “an insignificant platform where both sides are attacking each other; but you know what, no one knows about it.”

Diamond said that Cartland’s remorse was genuine. “A better man than Cartland would have said ‘I’ve had enough of this’ and switched it off,” he said. “But he gets his identity, to a certain extent, from his followers. He accepts he has a problem with this Twitter thing.”

He described the personal and financial impact on Cartland, recalling how he “cried when he lost his last job” and now drives two hours a day to work at the only practice that will employ him.

Legal Boundaries and Human Rights Considerations

As proceedings drew to a close, panel chair Mrs Claire Lindley reminded members of their legal obligations. She stated that the Human Rights Act, and specifically the right to free expression, must be considered. However, she also warned that the tribunal must decide whether “a large number of findings of not-serious misconduct” can amount to a broader “pattern of behaviour.”

“The tribunal should not punish a doctor for defending himself,” she said, “because it is his right to do so.”

The central legal question now facing the panel is whether Cartland’s actions, including those taken online, can reasonably be construed as self-defence, or whether they amount to professional misconduct incompatible with medical practice.

The panel is expected to deliver its decision at 09:30am, on Tuesday next week, determining whether Dr Cartland’s fitness to practise is impaired, and if so, what sanction, if any, should be imposed.