1. Home
  2. Hearings and decisions
  3. Medical practitioners tribunals
  4. Dr James Christopher HARLEY Jul 19

Dr James Christopher HARLEY

Medical practitioners tribunal – New Hearing scheduled
Outcome on impairment
Hearing not yet held
Summary of outcome
Hearing not yet held
Type of case
Hearing date from
02 Mar 2020
Hearing date to
06 Mar 2020
Hearing adjourned part heard. Previously sat: 22 July - 06 August, 23-31 October and 25 November 2019.
Location of hearing
St James’s Buildings, 79 Oxford Street, Manchester, M1 6FQ (get directions)
GMC reference number
Area of practice
Brighton and Hove

Pre hearing information


The tribunal will continue inquiring into the allegation that, on or around 4 October 2017, Dr Harley dishonestly claimed to have attended a mandatory training session when he had not. The tribunal will further continue inquiring into the allegation that, in January 2018, Dr Harley carried out a Central Venous Catheter ('CVC') procedure, after falsely telling the person supervising the procedure that he had previous experience of performing it. It is further alleged that Dr Harley made dishonest statements regarding his experience of performing CVC procedures at a later meeting. It is also alleged that Dr Harley failed to maintain an accurate trainee logbook despite knowing this was a compulsory part of his training.



This reflects the allegation as it stands at the start of the hearing. The allegation may be amended as the hearing proceeds and when findings of fact are made by the tribunal.


All decisions are published online within 28 days of the conclusion of the hearing.


If you're a journalist and need up to date information about the allegation throughout the course of the hearing, please contact our press office at pressoffice@mpts-uk.org or call 0161 250 6868.

Private hearings

In accordance with Rule 41(2) of the General Medical Council (Fitness to Practise) Rules 2004, the tribunal may decide to exclude the public from the proceedings or any part of the proceedings, where they consider that the circumstances of the case outweigh the public interest in holding the hearing in public.